'  "Itl  «..«(• 


'•           •    •  If        f*  f»     .    T 

■              ■ 

■#♦»•#%..»          .           ,            .* 

"        **»<» 

4- 


•        t       •  ■ 


TITIAN.       LA    BELLA.       PITTI,    FLORENCE. 


A  TEXT-BOOK  OF   THE 


HISTORY   OF    PAINTING 


BY 

JOHN  C.  VAN  DYKE,  L.H.D. 

PROFESSOR     OF    THE     HISTORY     OF    ART     IN     RUTGERS 

COLLEGE,    AND    AUTHOR    OF    "  ART    FOR   ART'S     SAKE," 

"THE     MEANING     OF     PICTURES,"     "  NEW     GUIDES     TO 

OLD    MASTERS,"     ETC. 


NEW  EDITION 


LONGMANS,    GREEN,   AND    CO. 

FOURTH  AVENUE  AND  30TH   STREET,  NEW  YORK 
LONDON,    BOMBAY,    CALCUTTA    AND    MADRAS 

1915 


COPYRIGHT,     1894,    BY 
LONGMANS,    GREEN,    AND    CO. 


COPYRIGHT,     igi  5,    BY 
LONGMANS,    GREEN,    AND    CO. 


ALL    RIGHTS    RESERVED 


First  Edition,  October,  1894. 

Reprinted,  March,  1895   and  November,  1896.    Revised. 

November,  1897,  and  November,  1898. 

November,  1899,  and  October,  1901. 

December,  1902,  and  April,  1904. 

September,  1905.    August,  1907.    February,  1909.    July,  1910.     Revised. 

May,  191 2.    November,  1913. 

April,  1915.    New  Edition,  enlarged  and  rewritten,  with  many  new  Illustrations. 


t    1    • 


PREFACE  TO  FIRST  EDITION 

THE  object  of  this  series  of  text-books  is  to  provide 
concise  teachable  histories  of  art  for  class-room  use 
in  schools  and  colleges.  The  limited  time  given  to  the 
study  of  art  in  the  average  educational  institution  has  not 
only  dictated  the  condensed  style  of  the  volumes,  but  has 
limited  their  scope  of  matter  to  the  general  features  of  art 
history.  Archaeological  discussions  on  special  subjects 
and  aesthetic  theories  have  been  avoided.  The  main  facts 
of  history  as  settled  by  the  best  authorities  are  given.  If 
the  reader  choose  to  enter  into  particulars  the  bibliography 
cited  at  the  head  of  each  chapter  will  be  found  helpful. 
Illustrations  have  been  introduced  as  sight-help  to  the 
text,  and,  to  avoid  repetition,  abbreviations  have  been  used 
wherever  practicable.  The  enumeration  of  the  principal 
works  of  a  school,  or  period,  and  where  they  may  be  found, 
which  follows  each  chapter,  may  be  serviceable  to  trav- 
elling students  in  Europe. 

This  volume  on  painting,  the  first  of  the  series,  omits 
mention  of  such  work  in  Arabic,  Indian,  Chinese,  and  Per- 
sian art  as  may  come  properly  under  the  head  of  Ornament. 
In  treating  of  individual  painters  it  has  been  thought  best 
to  give  a  short  critical  estimate  of  the  man  and  his  rank 
among  the  painters  of  his  time  rather  than  the  detailed 
facts  of  his  life.  Students  who  wish  accounts  of  the  lives 
of  the  painters  should  use  Vasari  and  the  various  encyclo- 
paedias and  histories  cited  in  the  bibliography,  in  connection 
with  this  text-book. 

October,  lgo4  J0HN   C   VAN  DYKE 


32725S 


PREFACE  TO  REVISED  EDITION 

THE  very  favorable  reception  which  this  little  text- 
book has  met  with  at  the  hands  of  the  public  en- 
titles it  to  a  new  dress  of  type,  new  illustrations,  and  a 
thorough  revision  of  the  written  matter.  In  giving  these 
there  has  been  an  attempt  to  modernize  the  book  without 
materially  changing  or  expanding  it.  The  original  plan 
of  making  it  merely  an  outline  sketch  of  the  history  of 
painting  —  something  that  the  student  may  fill  in  by  the 
aid  of  the  cited  bibliography  —  has  been  retained.  Addi- 
tions to  the  text  chiefly  concern  recently  discovered  ma- 
terials, new  matter  modifying  perhaps  the  history  of  a 
school,  newly  discovered  artists  in  the  old  schools,  or 
newly  arrived  painters  in  the  present-day  schools.  There 
has  been  much  questioning  in  recent  years  of  the  attribu- 
tions of  the  old  masters  and  this,  too,  has  necessitated 
some  modification  of  critical  opinion  in  individual  cases. 
Art  history  grows  with  the  years  and  the  books  that 
record  it  are  in  need  of  frequent  revision. 

The  study  of  the  history  of  painting  has  received  great 
help  in  modern  times  through  photography.  It  is  now 
possible  with  the  countless  good  photographs  and  repro- 
ductions to  carry  on  the  study  at  home.  This  is,  of 
course,  not  so  satisfactory  as  seeing  the  original  pictures, 
but  is,  nevertheless,  to  be  recommended  as  a  substitute. 
In  the  General  Bibliography  will  be  found  reference  to 


x  PREFACE   TO   REVISED    EDITION 

books  wholly  made  up  of  reproductions  which  can  be 
bought  at  a  low  price  and  furnish  excellent  sight-help  to 
the  written  text.  Catalogues  of  some  of  the  European 
galleries  are  also  listed  and  should  be  used  for  their  con- 
cise biographies  of  painters.  As  for  the  pictures  in  the 
European  galleries  I  do  not  hesitate,  immodest  though  it 
be,  to  recommend  my  own  critical  notes  upon  them  pub- 
lished under  the  general  title  of  New  Guides  to  Old  Masters. 
Acknowledgments  are  made  to  the  respective  publishers 
of  Walters,  Art  of  the  Greeks,  Isham,  History  of  American 
Painting,  Henderson,  Constable,  Flinders-Petrie,  Arts  and 
Crafts  of  Egypt,  and  the  fine  series  of  art  histories  by 
Perrot  and  Chipiez,  for  permission  to  reproduce  a  few 
illustrations  from  these  publications. 

March,  1915  J.  C.  V.  D. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

List  of  Illustrations xiii 

General  Bibliography xvii 

Introduction      xxi 

CHAPTER  I 


Egyptian  Painting 


CHAPTER  II 

Babylonian-Assyrian,  Persian,  Phoenician,  Cypriote,  and  Asia 

Minor  Painting 13 

CHAPTER  III 

Greek,  Etruscan,  and  Roman  Painting 27 

CHAPTER  IV 

Italian  Painting  —  Early  Christian  and  Medleval  Period, 

300-1250 43 

CHAPTER   V 
Italian  Painting  —  Gothic  Period,  1 250-1400 55 

CHAPTER  VI 

Italian  Painting  —  Early  Renaissance,  1400-1500 70 

CHAPTER  VII 

Italian  Painting  —  Early  Renaissance,  1400-1500,  Continued  .       87 

CHAPTER  VIII 

Italian  Painting  —  High  Renaissance,  1500-1600 102 

CHAPTER  IX 
Italian  Painting  —  High  Renaissance,  1500-1600,  Continued    .     115 

CHAPTER  X 

Italian  Painting  —  High  Renaissance,   1500-1600,  Continued    .     127 


xii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  XI 

Italian  Painting  —  The  Decadence  and  Modern  Work,  1600- 

i9J5 Hi 

CHAPTER  XII 
French  Painting  —  From  the  Beginning  to  Nineteenth 

Century 153 

CHAPTER  XIII 

French  Painting  —  Nineteenth  Century 167 

CHAPTER  XIV 

French  Painting  —  Nineteenth  Century,  Continued 182 

CHAPTER  XV 

French  Painting  —  Nineteenth  and  Twentieth  Centuries, 

Continued 191 

CHAPTER  XVI 
Spanish  Painting      204 

CHAPTER  XVII 
Flemish  Painting  —  From  the  Beginning  to  Sixteenth  Cen- 
tury      ,    .    .    .     220 

CHAPTER  XVIII 
Late  Flemish  and  Belgian  Painting 235 

CHAPTER  XIX 
Dutch  Painting 250 

CHAPTER  XX 
German  Painting      275 

CHAPTER  XXI 
British  Painting 295 

CHAPTER  XXII 

American  Painting 3J9 

Postscript 33^ 

Index 343 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 

Titian,  La  Bella,  Pitti Frontispiece 

PAGE 

i.  Geese  of  Medun.     Memphite  Period 3 

2.  Hunting  Scene.     Second  Theban  Period 5 

3.  Akhenaten  and  Queen.     Second  Theban  Period 7 

4.  Meneptah.     Second  Theban  Period 9 

5.  Bulls  in  a  Marsh.     Late  relief 11 

6.  Wild  Goats.     British  Mus 15 

7.  Enamelled  Brick,  Nimroud 17 

8.  Enamelled  Brick,  Blue  Ground.      Nimroud 18 

9.  "              "       Yellow  and  Blue.     Nimroud      20 

10.  Persian  Archers.     Paris      21 

11.  Cypriote  Painted  Vase 23 

12.  Cypriote  Vase  Decoration      25 

13.  Cervetri  Wall  Painting.     London 29 

14.  Vase  Painting.     Paris 31 

15.  Greek  and  Amazon.     Corneto 34 

16.  Hercules  Strangling  the  Serpents.     Pompeii 36 

17.  Aeneas  wounded.     Pompeii 39 

18.  Greek  Portrait,  Fayoum 40 

19.  Amphora.     Lower  Italy 41 

20.  Chamber  in  Catacombs      45 

21.  Christ  as  Good  Shepherd.     Catacombs 47 

22.  Christ  and  Saints.     Catacombs 49 

23.  Madonna  and  Child.     Byzantine  Style 51 

24.  Byzantine  Crucifix.     Pistoia 53 

25.  Giotto,  St.  John  at  Patmos.     Florence 57 

26.  Andrea  da  Firenze,  Resurrection.     Florence 59 

27.  Orcagna,  Paradise  (detail).     Florence 62 

28.  Spinello  Aretino,  St.  Benedict  and  Totila.     Florence 64 

29.  Simone  Martini,  Guido  Riccio  da  Fogliano.     Siena      66 

30.  Lorenzetti,  Peace  (detail).     Siena 67 


xiv  LIST   OF   ILLUSTRATIONS 

31.  Masaccio,  The  Tribute  Money.     Florence 71 

32.  Pollajuolo,  Portrait.     Milan 73 

33.  Botticelli,  Spring  (detail).     Florence 75 

34.  Ghirlandajo,  Portrait  (detail).     Florence 77 

35.  Melozzo  da  Forli,  Playing  Angel.     Rome 79 

36.  Perugino,  St.  Michael.     Florence 81 

37.  Pinturicchio,  St.  Catherine.     Rome 83 

38.  Cossa,  St.  John.     Milan 85 

39.  Mantegna,  Holy  Family.     Dresden 89 

40.  Lorenzo  Veneziano,  Annunciation.     Venice 91 

41.  Vivarini,  Altarpiece.     Venice 93 

42.  Crivelli,  Madonna  and  Child.     Milan 95 

43.  Carpaccio,  St.  Ursula  (detail).     Venice 97 

44.  Bellini,  St.  Catherine  (detail).     Venice 99 

45.  Basaiti,  Sons  of  Zebedee.     Venice 100 

46.  Fra  Bartolommeo,  Deposition.     Florence 103 

47.  Fra  Paolino,  Madonna  and  Saints.     Florence 105 

48.  Andrea  del  Sarto,  Madonna  dell'  Arpie.     Florence 107 

49.  Michelangelo,  Delphic  Sibyl.     Rome 109 

50.  Raphael,  Disputa  (detail).     Rome in 

51.  "       Leo  X  (detail).     Florence 113 

52.  Leonardo  da  Vinci,  Mona  Lisa.     Paris 116 

53.  Luini,  Madonna  of  Rose  Trellis.     Milan 117 

54.  Solario,  Madonna  of  Green  Cushion.     Paris 118 

55.  Sodoma,  Ecstasy  of  St.  Catherine.     Siena 120 

56.  Dossi,  St.  Sebastian.     Milan 122 

57.  Correggio,  Holy  Night.     Dresden 124 

58.  Correggio  (copy),  Angel.     Florence 125 

59.  Giorgione,  Portrait.     Berlin 129 

60.  Titian,  Sacred  and  Profane  Love  (detail).     Rome 131 

61.  Tintoretto,  Removing  Body  of  St.  Mark.     Milan 133 

62.  Paolo  Veronese's  School,  Industry.     Venice 135 

63.  Palma  Vecchio,  Holy  Family.     Venice 136 

64.  Bordone,  The  Lovers.     Milan 138 

65.  Bassano,  Lazarus.     Venice 139 

66.  Bronzino,  Christ  in  Hades.     Florence 142 

67.  Daniele  da  Volterra,  Descent.     Rome 144 

68.  Guido  Reni,  St.  Michael.     Rome 145 

69.  Allori,  Judith.     Florence 147 

70.  Caravaggio.     Deposition.     Rome 149 

71.  Tiepolo,  Calvary.     Venice 15° 


LIST    OF   ILLUSTRATIONS  xv 

72.  Segantini,  Ploughing 151 

73.  Fouquet,  St.  Stephen  and  Donor.     Berlin 155 

74.  Claude  Lorrain,  Landscape.     Munich 157 

75.  Mignard,  Hope.      Paris 159 

76.  Lancret,  The  Dance.     Berlin 161 

77.  Van  Loo,  Marie  Leczinski.     Paris      163 

78.  Greuze,  Village  Bride.     Paris 165 

79.  David,  Pius  VII.     Paris 169 

80.  Ingres,  (Edipus  and  Sphinx.     Paris 171 

81.  Gerard,  Mme.  Recamier.     Paris 173 

82.  Gericault,  The  Race      175 

83.  Delacroix,  Massacre  of  Scio.     Paris 177 

84.  Fromentin,  Horses  at  a  Ford 179 

85.  Corot,  Landscape 183 

86.  Rousseau,  Landscape.     New  York 185 

87.  Troyon,  Cattle.     Paris 187 

88.  Jacque,  Sheep  in  Landscape.     Paris      188 

•—■89.   Millet,  The  Gleaners.      Paris 190 

90.  Bouguereau,  Madonna  of  Consolation.     Paris 193 

91.  Henner,  Fabiola 195 

92.  Puvis  de  Chavannes,  Sorbonne  Decoration.     Paris 197 

93.  Courbet,  Deer  Retreat.      Paris 198 

94.  Dagnan-Bouveret,  Madonna.     New  York 200 

95.  Manet,  Boy  with  Sword.     New  York 201 

96.  Renoir,  Girls  at  Piano.     Paris 202 

97.  Sanchez-Coello,  Portrait  of  Clara  Eugenia.     Madrid     .      .      .  206 

98.  II  Greco,  Crucifixion.     Madrid 208 

— 99.   Velasquez,  Infante  Philip  Prosper.     Vienna 210 

<-TOb.   Murillo,  Madonna  and  Child.     Florence 212 

^^te^r   Goya,  Portrait.     Madrid 214 

102.  Fortuny,  Serpent  Charmer.     Baltimore 216 

103.  Sorolla,  After  the  Bath 218 

104.  Van  Eyck,  Singing  Angels  (detail).     Berlin      222 

105.  Van  der  Weyden,  Pieta.     Brussels 224 

106.  Bouts,  Gathering  Manna.     Munich 226 

107.  Memling,  Barbara  de  Vlaenderberghe.     Brussels 228 

108.  David,  Baptism  of  Christ.     Bruges 230 

109.  Metsys,  Madonna.     Berlin      233 

no.   Moro,  Margaret  of  Parma.     Berlin 237 

in.   Rubens,  Resurrection  of  Lazarus.     Berlin 239 

112.   Rubens,  Jacqueline  de  Cordes.     Brussels 241 


xvi  LIST   OF   ILLUSTRATIONS 

13.  Van  Dyck,  Portrait.     Milan 243 

14.  Cornelis  de  Vos,  Painter's  Daughters.     Berlin 245 

15.  Stevens,  On  the  Beach 247 

16.  Ouwater,  Resurrection  of  Lazarus.     Berlin 252 

17.  Lucas  Van  Leyden,  Madonna.     Berlin 254 

18.  Hals,  Laughing  Cavalier.     London 256 

19.  Rembrandt,  Portrait.      Petrograd 258 

20.  "         Saskia.      Cassel 261 

21.  Terborch,  The  Concert.     Berlin 263 

22.  Pieter  de  Hooch,  Interior.     Amsterdam 265 

23.  Vermeer  of  Delft,  Portrait.     The  Hague 267 

24.  Ruisdael,  Landscape 270 

25.  Israels,  Alone  in  the  World      273 

26.  Diirer,  Christ  on  Cross.     Dresden 277 

27.  Holbein,  Madonna.     Darmstadt 279 

28.  "       Portrait.     Vienna 281 

29.  Cranach,  Flight  into  Egypt.      Berlin 283 

30.  Lenbach,  Portrait.     New  York 285 

31.  Uhde,  Christ  in  the  Garden 288 

32.  Thoma,  Landscape 290 

^.   Liebermann,  On  the  Beach 292 

34.  Hogarth,  Marriage  a  la  Mode.     London 297 

35.  Reynolds,  Lady  Cockburn  and  Children.     London 299 

36.  Gainsborough,  Mrs.  Siddons.     London 302 

37.  Morland,  The  Inn 304 

38.  Turner,  Fighting  Temeraire.     London 306 

39.  Constable,  The  Cottage.     London 308 

40.  Millais,  Vale  of  Rest.     London 310 

41.  Burne- Jones,  Love  among  the  Ruins 312 

42.  Leighton,  Lachrymae.     New  York 314 

43.  Watts,  Love  and  Death 316 

44.  Copley,  Lady  Wentworth.     New  York 320 

45.  Harding,  John  Randolph  of  Roanoke.     Washington 322 

46.  Jarvis,  Henry  Clay.     New  York 324 

47.  Diirand,  Landscape.     New  York 326 

48.  Homer,  Marine.     New  York 328 

49.  Inness,  Landscape 33° 

50.  Sargent,  Mrs.  Ian  Hamilton 332 

51.  Alexander,  Walt  Whitman.     New  York 333 

52.  Henri,  Young  Woman  in  Black 334 


GENERAL   BIBLIOGRAPHY 

THIS  is  a  limited  list  of  the  accessible  books  that  treat  of 
painting  and  its  history  in  general.  For  works  on  special 
periods  or  schools  see  the  bibliographical  references  at  the 
head  of  each  chapter.  The  titles  are  usually  abbreviated  but  are 
sufficient  for  recognition.  Any  librarian  or  bookseller  can  supply 
full  information  about  them  on  demand.  It  is  desirable  that  the 
last  edition  be  always  demanded.  For  that  reason  and  to  avoid 
confusion  the  dates  herein  are  frequently  omitted. 

DICTIONARIES 

Bryan,  Dictionary  of  Painters  and  Engravers  (Williamson  edition). 

London. 
Champlin  and   Perkins,   Cyclopedia  of  Painters  and  Paintings. 

New  York,  1887. 
Encyclopedia  Britannica  (nth  edition).     London,  1910. 
Larousse,  Grand  Dictionnaire  Universel.     Paris. 
Meyer, ~JLllgemeines  Kilnstler-Lexikon.     Leipzig,  1872-1885. 
Meyer,  Kanversations-Lexikon.     Leipzig. 
Thieme  und  Becker,  Allgemeines  Lexikon  der  bildenden  Kiinstler. 

Leipzig,  1908. 
Wurzbach,  Niederldndisches  Kilnstler-Lexikon.    Wien,  1910. 

CATALOGUES 

Beschreibendes  Verzeichnis  der  Gemalde  im  Kaiser -Friedrich  Museum. 

Berlin,  1913.     (Unabridged.) 
Catalogue  of  National  Gallery,  London.     (Unabridged,  191 5.) 
Catalogue  of  the  Wallace  Collection.     London,  1913. 
Catalogue  of  Paintings.    Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art.    New  York, 

1914. 


xviii  GENERAL   BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Catalogue  of  Art  Institute.     Chicago,  1014. 
Catalogue  of  Paintings,  Carnegie  Institute.     Pittsburgh. 
Catalogue  of  Pennsylvania  Academy  of  Fine  Arts.     Philadelphia. 
Catalogue  of  the  Wilstach  Collection,  Fairmount  Park.     Philadelphia. 
Catalogue  historique  et  descriptif  des  Tableaux  anciens  du  Musee  de 

Bruxelles  par  A.  J.  Wauters.     Brussels,  1906. 
Catalogo  delta  R.  Pinacoteca  di  Brera  con  cenno  storico  di  Corrado 

Ricci.     Bergamo,  1908. 
Frizzoni,  Le  Gallerie  delV  Accademia  Carrara  a  Bergamo.     Bergamo, 

1907. 
Guida  del  Mttseo  Nazionale  di  Napoli.     Catalogo  di  Aldo  de'  Rinaldio. 

Napoli,  191 1. 

PERIODICALS 

American  Journal  of  Archceology.     New  York. 

Burlington  Magazine.     London. 

Die  Kunst.     Munich. 

Gazette  des  Beaux  Arts.     Paris. 

International  Studio.     New  York. 

Jahrbuch  der  Konigl.  Preuss.  Kunstsammlungen.     Berlin. 

UArte.     Rome. 

Rassegna  d' 'Arte.     Milan. 

Zeitschrift  fur  bildende  Kunst.     Berlin. 

ILLUSTRATIONS   IN  BOOK  FORM 

Art  Galleries  of  Europe  (Newnes  Publication).     London. 

Classics  in  Art,  Brentano,  1914. 

Diederich,  Die  Kunst  in  Bildern.     Jena,  1909. 

Gowans,  Art  Books.     London,  1909. 

Hanfstaengl,  National  Gallery,  London;  Old  Pinacothek,  Munich; 
Hermitage,  St.  Petersburg;  Berlin,  Dresden,  Cassel,  Amsterdam, 
Hague,  Haarlem  galleries. 

Knackfuss,  Kilnstler-Monagraphien.     Bielefeld,  1900. 

Masterpieces  of  Painting.     Stokes,  New  York. 

Ricci,  Raccolte  $  Arte;  Collezione  di  Monografie  illustrate.  Ber- 
gamo, 1908. 

University  Prints,  Bureau  of  University  Travel.     Boston. 


GENERAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  xix 

TECHNIQUE  OF  PAINTING 

Cennini,  Treatise  on  Painting  (last  edition). 

Eastlake,  Materials  j or  the  History  of  Oil  Painting.     London,  1869. 
Kiesling,  Wesen  und  Technik  der  Malerei.     Leipzig,  1908. 
Leonardo  da  Vinci,  Treatise  on  Painting.    London. 
Moreau-Vauthier,  Technique  of  Painting.     New  York,  191 2. 
Schultze-Naumburg,  Die  Technik  der  Malerei.     Leipzig,  1908. 
Van  Dyke,  Art  for  Art's  Sake.    New  York,  1904. 
Vibert,  La  Science  de  la  Peinture.     Paris. 

GENERAL  HISTORIES 

Bayet,  Precis  d' Histoire  de  VArt.     Paris,  1908. 

Blanc,  Histoire  des  Peintres  de  toutes  les  Ecoles.     Paris. 

Kugler,  Handbook  of  Painting.     Italian  School.     Ed.  Layard,  New 

York. 
Kugler,  Handbook  of  Painting.    German,  Flemish,  Dutch  Schools. 

Ed.  Crowe,  New  York. 
LtJBKE,  History  of  Art  (Russell  Sturgis  edition).     New  York,  1904. 
Michel,  Histoire  de  VArt.    Paris,  1895. 
Muther,  History  of  Painting.     New  York,  1907. 
Muther,  History  of  Modem  Painting.     New  York,  1906. 
Reinach,  Apollo.     New  York,  1907. 
Springer,  Handbuch  der  Kunstgeschichte.     Leipzig,  1909. 
Springer-Ricci,  Manuale  di  Storia  dell'  Arte.     Bergamo. 
Woermann,  Geschichte  der  Kunst.     Leipzig,  1904. 
Woltmann  and  Woermann,  History  of  Painting.     New  York,  1885. 


INTRODUCTION 

The  origin  of  painting  is  unknown.  The  first  important 
records  of  this  art  are  met  with  in  Egypt;  but  before  the 
Egyptian  civilization  the  men  of  the  early  ages  probably 
used  color  in  ornamentation  and  decoration,  and  they  certainly 
scratched  the  outlines  of  men  and  animals  upon  bone  and  slate. 
Traces  of  this  rude  primitive  work  still  remain  to  us  on  the 
pottery,  weapons,  and  stone  implements  of  the  cave-dwellers. 
But  while  indicating  the  awakening  of  intelligence  in  early 
man,  they  can  be  reckoned  with  as  art  only  in  a  slight  archaeo- 
logical way.  They  show  inclination  rather  than  accomplish- 
ment —  a  wish  to  ornament  or  to  represent,  with  only  a  crude 
knowledge  of  the  way  to  go  about  it. 

The  first  aim  of  this  primitive  painting  was  probably  dec- 
oration —  the  using  of  colored  forms  for  color  and  form  only, 
as  shown  in  the  pottery  designs  or  cross-hatchings  on  stone 
knives  or  spear-heads.  The  second,  and  perhaps  later  aim, 
was  by  imitating  the  shapes  and  colors  of  men,  animals,  and 
the  like,  to  convey  an  idea  of  the  proportions  and  characters 
of  such  things.  An  outline  of  a  cave-bear  or  a  mammoth 
was  perhaps  the  cave-dweller's  way  of  telling  his  fellows  what 
monsters  he  had  slain.  We  may  assume  that  it  was  pictorial 
record,  primitive  picture-written  history.  This  early  method 
of  conveying  an  idea  is,  in  intent,  substantially  the  same  as 
the  later  hieroglyphic  writing  and  historical  painting  of  the 
Egyptians.  The  difference  between  them  is  merely  one  of 
development.  Thus  there  is  an  indication  in  the  art  of  Prim- 
itive Man  of  two  different  pictorial  motives  existent  to-day  — 
Decoration  and  Representation. 


xxii  INTRODUCTION 

Pure  Decorative  Painting  is  not  usually  expressive  of  ideas 
other  than  those  of  pattern,  rhythmical  line,  and  harmonious 
color.  It  is  not  our  subject.  This  volume  treats  of  Repre- 
sentative or  Expressive  Painting;  but  in  dealing  with  that 
it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  Representative  Painting  has 
almost  always  a  positive  decorative  effect  accompanying  it, 
and  this  must  be  kept  in  mind  for  no  other  reason  than  that 
the  painter  has  it  in  mind  and  usually  considers  it  a  leading 
motive.  We  shall  presently  see  the  intermingling  of  both  kinds 
of  painting  in  the  art  of  ancient  Egypt  —  our  first  inquiry. 


t 


*         1 


HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

CHAPTER   I 

EGYPTIAN  PAINTING 

Books  Recommended:  Breasted,  History  of  Egypt;  Budge, 
Dwellers  on  the  Nile;  History  of  Egypt;  The  Mummy;  Capart, 
Primitive  Art  in  Ancient  Egypt;  Catalogue  general  du  Musee 
du  Caire;  Duncker,  History  of  Antiquity;  Egypt  Exploration 
Fund  Memoirs;  Erman,  Life  in  Ancient  Egypt;  Flinders- 
Petrie,  Arts  and  Crafts  of  Ancient  Egypt;  Egyptian  Decorative 
Art;  Lepsius,  Denkmaler  aus  Aegypten  und  Aethiopen;  Mas- 
pero,  Art  in  Egypt;  Egyptian  Archaeology;  Egyptian  Art;  Life 
in  Ancient  Egypt  and  Assyria;  Perrot  and  Chipiez,  History  of 
Art  in  Ancient  Egypt;  Wilkinson,  Manners  and  Customs  of 
the  Ancient  Egyptians. 

LAND  AND  PEOPLE:  Egypt,  as  Herodotus  has  said,  is 
"the  gift  of  the  Nile,"  one  of  the  latest  of  the  earth's  geolog- 
ical formations,  and  yet  one  of  the  earliest  countries  to  be 
settled  and  dominated  by  man.  It  consists  now,  as  in  the 
ancient  days,  of  the  valley  of  the  Nile,  bounded  on  the  east 
by  the  Arabian  mountains  and  on  the  west  by  the  Libyan 
desert.  Well-watered  and  fertile,  it  was  doubtless  at  first 
a  pastoral  and  agricultural  country;  then,  by  its  riverine 
traffic,  a  commercial  country,  and  finally,  by  conquest,  a 
land  enriched  with  the  spoils  of  warfare. 

Its  earliest  records  show  a  strongly  established  monarchy. 
Dynasties  of  kings  called  Pharaohs  succeeded  one  another 


2  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

by  birth  or  conquest.  The  king  made  the  laws,  judged  the 
people,  declared  war,  and  was  monarch  supreme.  Next  to 
him  in  rank  came  the  priests,  who  were  not  only  in  the  serv- 
ice of  religion  but  in  that  of  the  state,  as  counsellors,  secre- 
taries, and  the  like.  The  common  people,  with  true  Oriental 
lack  of  individuality,  depending  blindly  on  leaders,  were 
little  more  than  the  servants  of  the  upper  classes. 

The  Egyptian  religion,  existing  in  the  earliest  days,  was 
a  worship  of  the  personified  elements  of  nature.  Each  element 
had  its  particular  controlling  god,  worshipped  as  such.  Later 
on  in  Egyptian  history  the  number  of  gods  was  increased,  and 
each  city  had  its  trinity  of  godlike  protectors  symbolized 
by  the  propylaea  of  the  temples.  Future  life  was  a  certainty, 
provided  that  the  Ka,  or  spirit,  did  not  fall  a  prey  to  Typhon, 
the  God  of  Evil,  during  the  long  wait  in  the  tomb  for  the  judg- 
ment-day. The  belief  that  the  spirit  rested  in  the  body 
until  finally  transported  to  the  aaln  fields  (the  Islands  of  the 
Blest,  afterward  adopted  by  the  Greeks)  was  one  reason  for 
the  careful  preservation  of  the  body  by  mummifying  processes. 
Life  itself  was  not  more  important  than  death.  Hence  the 
imposing  ceremonies  of  the  funeral  and  burial,  the  elaborate 
richness  of  the  mummy  case,  the  papyrus  rolls,  the  painted 
busts,  the  canopic  jars,  the  walls  and  doors  of  the  tomb  itself. 
Frequently  every  available  space  in  the  chamber  was  filled 
with  scenes  from  the  life  of  the  deceased,  and  everywhere, 
on  sculpture  in  the  round  as  well  as  on  the  flat  wall,  color  was 
used  with  the  most  brilliant  effect.  Perhaps  the  first  Egyptian 
art  arose  through  religious  observance,  and  almost  certainly 
the  first  known  to  us  was  sepulchral  in  nature. 

ART  MOTIVES:  The  centre  of  the  Egyptian  system  was 
the  monarch  and  his  supposed  relatives,  the  gods.  They 
arrogated  to  themselves  the  chief  thought  of  life,  and  the  aim 
of  the  great  bulk  of  the  art,  aside  from  sepulchral  decoration, 
was  to  glorify  monarchy  or  deity.     The  massive  buildings, 


EGYPTIAN  PAINTING  3 

standing  to-day  in  ruins,  ^were  built  as  the  dwelling-places  of 
kings  or  as  the  sanctuaries  of  gods.  The  towers  symbol- 
ized deity,  the  sculptures  and  paintings  recited  the  func- 
tional duties  of  presiding  spirits,  or  the  Pharaoh's  looks  and 
acts.  Almost  everything  about  the  public  buildings  in  paint- 
ing and  sculpture  was  symbolic  illustration,  picture-written 
history  —  written  with  a  chisel  and  brush,  written  large  that 
all  might  read.  There  was  no  other  safe  way  of  preserving 
record.    There  were  no  books;   the  papyrus  sheet,  used  exten- 


FIG.     I.  —  GEESE   OF   MEDUN.      MEMPHITE   PERIOD. 


sively,  was  frail,  and  the  Egyptians  evidently  wished  their 
buildings,  carvings,  and  paintings  to  last  into  eternity.  So 
they  wrought  in  and  upon  stone.  The  same  hieroglyphic 
character  of  their  papyrus  writings  appeared  cut  and  colored 
on  the  palace  walls,  and  above  them  and  beside  them  the 
pictures  (sometimes  painted  flat  and  sometimes  in  relief  or 
with  a  chiselled  outline)  ran  as  vignettes  explanatory  of  the 
text.  The  tombs  of  the  Pharaohs  perpetuated  history  in  a 
similar  manner.  With  those  of  the  common  people  there 
was  less  ostentation.  The  individual  was  of  less  importance 
than  the  monarch  and  yet  according  to  his  rank  each  one  had 


4  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

set  forth  the  domestic  scenes  of  his  life  and  was  glorious  at 
least  in  death. 

In  one  form  or  another  it  was  all  record  of  Egyptian  life, 
but  this  was  not  the  only  motive  of  their  painting.  The 
temples  and  palaces,  designed  to  shut  out  light  and  heat, 
were  long  squares  of  heavy  stone,  gloomy  as  the  cave  from 
which  their  plan  may  have  originated.  Carving  and  color 
were  used  to  brighten  and  enliven  the  interior.  The  battles, 
the  judgment  scenes,  the  Pharaoh  playing  at  draughts  with 
his  wives,  the  religious  rites  and  ceremonies,  were  all  given 
with  gay  arbitrary  color,  surrounded  oftentimes  by  bordering 
bands  of  green,  yellow,  and  blue.  Color  showed  everywhere 
from  floor  to  ceiling.  Even  the  explanatory  hieroglyphic 
texts,  cut  with  the  chisel,  ran  in  colors,  lining  the  walls  and 
winding  around  the  cylinders  of  stone.  The  lotus  capitals, 
the  frieze  and  architrave,  all  glowed  with  bright  hues,  and 
often  the  roof  ceiling  was  painted  in  blue  and  studded  with 
golden  stars. 

All  this  shows  a  decorative  motive  in  Egyptian  painting, 
and  how  constantly  this  was  kept  in  view  may  be  seen  at 
times  in  the  arrangement  of  the  different  scenes,  the  large 
ones  being  placed  in  the  middle  of  the  wall  and  the  smaller 
ones  going  at  the  top  and  bottom,  to  act  as  a  frieze  and 
dado.  This  applies  also  to  the  scenes  from  domestic  life 
shown  in  the  tombs.  Even  the  last  resting-place  of  the 
mummy  was  made  brilliant  in  color,  decorative  in  its  de- 
signs. There  were,  then,  two  leading  motives  for  Egyptian 
painting:  (i)  History  —  monarchical,  religious,  or  domestic; 
and  (2)   Decoration. 

TECHNICAL  METHODS:  Man  in  the  early  stages  of  civil- 
ization comprehends  objects  more  by  line  than  by  color  or 
light.  The  figure  is  not  studied  in  itself,  but  in  its  sun-shadow 
or  silhouette.  The  Egyptian  hieroglyph  represented  objects 
by  outlines  or  arbitrary  marks  and  conveyed  a  simple  meaning 


EGYPTIAN  PAINTING  5 

without  circumlocution.  The  Egyptian  painting  was  sub- 
stantially an  enlargement  of  the  hieroglyph.  There  was 
little  attempt  to  place  objects  in  the  setting  which  they  hold 
in  nature.    Perspective  and  light-and-shade  were  disregarded. 


FIG.    2. —  HUNTING  SCENE.      SECOND  THEBAN  PERIOD. 

Objects,  of  whatever  nature,  were  shown  in  flat  profile.  There 
was  no  established  canon  of  the  figure  but  the  general  pro- 
portions of  the  body  were  observed  by  all  the  painters  in  such 
a  way  that  a  similar  figure  was  produced  by  all.  The  shoulders 
were  square,  the  hips  slight,  the  legs  and  arms  long,  the  feet 
and  hands  flat.  The  head,  legs,  and  arms  were  shown  in 
profile,  while  the  chest  and  eye  were  twisted  to  show  the 


6  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

flat  front  view.  There  are  very  few  full-faced  figures  among 
the  remains  of  Egyptian  painting.  After  the  outline  was 
drawn  the  enclosed  space  was  filled  in  with  plain  color.  In 
the  absence  of  high  light,  or  composed  groups,  prominence 
was  given  to  an  important  figure,  like  that  of  the  king,  by 
making  it  much  larger  than  the  other  figures.  This  may  be 
seen  in  any  of  the  battle-pieces  of  Rameses  II,  in  which  the 
monarch  in  his  chariot  is  a  giant  where  his  followers  are  mere 
pygmies.  In  the  absence  of  perspective,  receding  figures  of 
men  or  of  horses  were  given  by  multiplied  outlines  of  legs, 
or  heads,  placed  before,  or  after,  or  raised  above  one  another. 
Flat  water  was  represented  by  zigzag  lines,  placed  as  it  were 
upon  a  map,  one  tree  symbolized  a  forest,  and  one  fortification 
a  town. 

These  outline  drawings  of  the  human  figure  were  not  realistic 
in  any  exact  sense.  The  face  was  generally  expressionless, 
the  figure,  evidently  done  from  memory  or  pattern,  did  not 
reveal  anatomical  structure,  except  in  a  general  way,  but  was 
nevertheless  graceful.  In  the  representation  of  animals  and 
birds  there  was  often  shown  a  decided  realistic  spirit,  especially 
in  the  matter  of  motion.  At  times,  as  with  goats,  cattle, 
antelopes,  monkeys,  geese,  ducks,  there  is  very  shrewd  char- 
acterization. This  appears  again  occasionally  in  flowers, 
reeds,  and  trees.  The  color  was  usually  an  attempt  at  nature, 
though  at  times  arbitrary  or  symbolic,  as  in  the  case  of  certain 
gods  rendered  with  blue,  yellow,  or  green  skins.  Men  were 
usually  given  with  reddish  skins;  women  with  yellow  skins. 
The  backgrounds  were  usually  of  flat  color,  arbitrary  in  hue, 
and  decorative  only.  They  were  illuminated  rather  than 
painted  in  a  modern  sense.  The  only  composition  seems  to 
have  been  a  balance  by  numbers,  and  the  processional  scenes 
rose  tier  upon  tier  above  one  another  in  long  panels. 

Such  work  would  seem  almost  ludicrous  did  we  not  keep 
in  mind  its  reason  for  existence.     It  was,  first,  symbolic  story- 


EGYPTIAN  PAINTING  7 

telling  art,  and  secondly,  architectural  decoration.  As  a 
story-teller  it  was  effective  because  of  its  simplicity  and  direct- 
ness. As  decoration,  the  repeated  expressionless  face  and 
figure,  the  arbitrary  color,  the  absence  of  perspective  .were 
not  inappropriate  then  nor  are  they  now.  Egyptian  painting 
was  always  largely  concerned  with  the  decorative  motive. 
Wall  painting  was  usually  an  adjunct  of  architecture,  and 


FIG.   3.  —  AKHENATEN   AND   QUEEN.       SECOND   THEBAN   PERIOD. 

perhaps  originally  grew  out  of  sculpture.  The  early  statues 
were  almost  always  colored.  The  brush  brought  out  features 
in  color  that  the  chisel  could  not  indicate.  On  wall  spaces 
the  chisel,  like  the  flint  of  Primitive  Man,  cut  the  outline  of 
the  figure.  At  first  only  this  cut  was  filled  with  color,  pro- 
ducing what  has  been  called  the  koilanaglyphic.  In  a  later 
stage  the  line  was  made  by  drawing  with  chalk  or  coal  on 
prepared  stucco,  and  the  color,  mixed  with  gum-water  (a 
kind  of  distemper),  was  applied  to  the  whole  enclosed  space. 


8  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

Substantially  the  same  method  of  painting  was  used  upon 
other  materials,  such  as  wood,  mummy  cartonnage,  papyrus. 
The  medium  was  a  water-color  or  some  form  of  distemper. 
Oil  painting  was  apparently  unknown  or  at  least  not  used. 
Pens  and  brushes  were  made  from  reeds  and  hair,  and 
wooden  palettes  held  the  few  primitive  colors  used.  In  all 
its  thousands  of  years  of  existence  Egyptian  painting  never 
advanced  upon  or  varied  to  any  extent  its  one  method  of 

work. 

HISTORIC  PERIODS:  There  is  some  evidence  of  prehistoric 
art  in  Egypt  but  as  yet  it  is  not  well  defined  or  accurately 
appreciated.  No  date  is  offered  for  it,  but  sequential  changes 
in  the  types  upon  pottery  and  in  tools  have  been  noted.  The 
figures  in  the  round  are  rude,  often  without  hands  and  feet, 
and  the  coloring  used  on  the  stone  is  red  with  white  and  black: 
Painting  of  a  crude  nature  appears  also  on  pottery,  and  shows 
sometimes  men,  but  more  often  such  animals  as  the  goat  and 
hippopotamus.  Perhaps  the  development  of  this  early  art 
gave  to  later  Egyptian  art  its  characteristic  aspect;  but  so  far 
the  thought  is  merely  speculative. 

Memphite  Period.  Art  that  is  peculiarly  and  positively 
Egyptian  begins  for  us  with  the  Memphite  period  when  the 
seat  of  government  was  at  Memphis  in  Lower  Egypt.  There 
is  no  certain  date  for  the  period  and  the  dynasties  of  kings  are 
assigned  approximately  only.  It  was  the  age  of  Chephren, 
Cheops,  and  the  great  pyramid  builders  —  the  golden  age 
apparently  of  Egyptian  art.  In  fact,  all  Egyptian  art,  lit- 
erature, language,  civilization,  seem  at  their  highest  point  of 
perfection  in  the  period  farthest  removed  from  us.  In  that 
earliest  time  the  finest  portrait  busts  and  reliefs  were  cut, 
and  the  painting,  found  chiefly  in  the  tombs  and  on  the 
mummy-cases,  was  the  pronounced  realistic  with  not  a  little 
of  spirited  individuality.  The  figure  was  rather  short  and 
squat,  the  face  a  little  squarer  than  the  conventional  type 


EGYPTIAN  PAINTING 


afterward  adopted,  the  anatomy  better,  and  the  positions, 
attitudes,  and  gestures  more  truthful  to  local  characteristics. 
The  domestic  scenes  —  hunting,  fishing,  tilling,  grazing  —  were 
all  shown  in  the  one  flat,  planeless,  shadowless  method  of 
representation,  but  with  greater  truth  of  characterization  and 
more  variety  than  ap- 
peared later  on.  Still, 
more  or  less  conventional 
types  were  used,  even  in 
this  early  time,  and  con- 
tinued to  be  used  all 
through  Egyptian  his- 
tory. The  best  quality 
of  Egyptian  art  was  pro- 
duced during  the  fourth, 
fifth,  and  sixth  dynasties 
of  this  period.  After  that 
there  seems  to  have  been 
some  decline. 

First  Theban  Period. 
The  Memphite  period 
comes  down  to  the  twelfth 
dynasty.  There  then  en- 
ters a  succession  of  for- 
eign kings,  erroneously 
called  the  Hyksos,  who  were  probably  responsible  for  a  revival 
and  enlargement  of  both  sculpture  and  painting.  During 
this  time  there  were  forceful  characterization  and  much 
vigor  of  style  in  sculpture  in  the  round,  some  fine  cutting  in 
low  relief,  and  skilled  work  in  flat  painting  upon  the  interior 
of  tombs.  The  work  on  the  whole  was  not  so  good  as  in  the 
early  time  of  Memphite  art  though  perhaps  wider  in  scope. 

Second   Theban   Period.     This  culminated  in  Thebes,   in 
Upper  Egypt,  with  Rameses  II,  of  the  nineteenth  dynasty. 


FIG.    4. 


HENEPTAH.      PAINTING   OF    SECOND 
THEBAN  PERIOD. 


io  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

Painting  had  then  changed  somewhat  both  in  subject  and 
character.  The  time  was  one  of  great  temple-  and  palace- 
building,  and,  though  the  painting  of  genre  subjects  in  tombs 
and  sepulchres  continued,  the  general  body  of  art  became 
more  monumental  and  closely  associated  with  architecture. 
Painting  was  put  to  work  on  temple-  and  palace-walls,  depict- 
ing in  various  kinds  of  relief  with  color,  processional  scenes, 
either  religious  or  monarchical,  and  vast  in  extent.  The  fig- 
ure, too,  changed  somewhat.  It  became  longer,  slighter,  with 
a  pronounced  nose,  thick  lips,  and  long  eye.  From  constant 
repetition,  rather  than  any  set  rule  or  canon,  this  figure  grew 
conventional,  and  was  reproduced  as  a  type  in  a  mechanical 
and  unvarying  manner  for  hundreds  of  years.  It  was  a  varia- 
tion of  the  original  Egyptian  type  seen  in  the  tombs  of  the 
earlier  dynasties  but  had  lost  force  and  character  while  gain- 
ing grace  and  movement.  There  was  a  great  quantity  of 
art  produced  during  the  Second  Theban  Period,  of  a  decorative 
character,  but  it  grew  rather  monotonous  by  repetition  and 
became  filled  with  established  mannerisms.  The  Egyptian 
at  this  time  was  not  a  free  worker,  not  an  artist  expressing 
himself;  but  a  skilled  mechanic  following  time-honored 
example.  How  very  skilful  he  was  may  be  seen  in  the  out- 
line drawings  made  with  one  continuous  stroke  without  inter- 
polation or  emendation  and  graceful  to  the  last  degree  for 
early  art.  The  facility  of  both  painter  and  sculptor  at  this 
time  is  extraordinary.  This  Second  Memphite  Period  ends 
with  the  twentieth  dynasty.     Then  begins  the 

Saite  Period  when  the  seat  of  empire  was  once  more  in 
Lower  Egypt,  and  art  had  visibly  declined  with  the  waning 
power  of  the  country.  Spontaneity  seems  to  have  passed  out 
of  it,  it  was  repetition  of  repetition  by  inferior  workmen,  and 
the  simplicity  and  purity  of  the  technique  were  corrupted 
by  foreign  influences.  With  the  Alexandrian  epoch  Egyptian 
art  came  in  contact  with  Greek  methods,  and  grew  imitative 


EGYPTIAN  PAINTING 


II 


of  the  new  art,  to  the  detriment  of  its  own  native  character. 
Eventually  it  was  entirely  lost  in  the  art  of  the  Greco-Roman 
world.  During  this  last  period  painting  was  almost  always 
conventional,  produced  by  a  method  almost  as  unvarying  as 
that  of  the  hieroglyphic  writing.     Technically  it  had  many 


FIG.    5.  —  BULLS   IN   A   MARSH.      LATE   RELIEF. 


shortcomings,  but  it  conveyed  the  proper  information  to  its 
beholders  and  was  serviceable  and  graceful  decoration  even 
to  the  end.  As  often  happens  the  method  of  the  art  survived 
its  spirit  in  Egypt  and  repeated  the  graceful  formulae  after 
its  life  and  soul  had  departed. 

EXTANT  PAINTINGS:  Some  of  the  temples,  palaces,  and  tombs 
of  Egypt  still  reveal  Egyptian  painting  in  almost  as  perfect  a  state  as 
when  originally  executed;  the  Ghizeh  Museum  has  many  fine  ex- 
amples; and  there  are  numerous  examples  in  the  museums  at  Turin, 
Paris,  Berlin,  London,  and  Boston.     An  interesting  collection  belongs 


12  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

to  the  New  York  Historical  Society,  and  some  of  the  latest  "finds  "  of 
the  Harvard  University  Expedition  are  in  the  Boston  Museum.  Recent 
and  important  discoveries  have  been  made  by  Mr.  Theodore  Davis 
of  Newport,  R.I.,  and  some  of  these  are  to  be  seen  in  the  Metro- 
politan Museum,  New  York,  where  the  student  will  find  the  largest 
and  best  arranged  collection  of  Egyptian  antiquities  in  America. 


CHAPTER   II 

BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN   PAINTING 

Books  Recommended:  Babelon,  Manual  of  Oriental  Antiq- 
uities; Botta,  Monument  de  Ninive;  British  Museum  Guide 
to  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  Antiquities;  Budge,  Babylonian 
Life  and  History;  Goodspeed,  History  of  Babylonians  and 
Assyrians;  Handcock,  Mesopotamian  Archaeology;  Jastrow, 
Religious  Belief  in  Babylonia  and  Assyria;  Johns,  Ancient 
Assyria;  Layard,  Discoveries  Among  Ruins  of  Nineveh  and 
Babylon;  Nineveh  and  its  Remains;  Lenormant,  Manual  of 
the  Ancient  History  of  the  East;  Maspero,  Life  in  Ancient 
Egypt  and  Assyria;  Perrot  and  Chipiez,  History  of  Art  in 
Chaldcea  and  Assyria;  Pinches,  Religion  of  Babylonia  and 
Assyria;  Place,  Ninive  et  VAssyrie;  Rogers,  History  of  Baby- 
lonia and  Assyria;  Sayce,  Assyria:  Its  Palaces,  Priests,  and 
People;  Babylonians  and  Assyrians;  Ward,  Seal  Cylinders  of 
Western  Asia. 

TIGRIS-EUPHRATES  CIVILIZATION:  In  some  respects  the 
Mesopotamian  civilization  along  the  Tigris-Euphrates  was 
not  unlike  that  along  the  Nile.  Both  valleys  were  settled  by 
primitive  peoples,  who  grew  rapidly  by  virtue  of  favorable 
climate  and  soil,  and  eventually  developed  into  great  nations 
headed  by  kings  absolute  in  power.  The  king  was  the  state 
in  Egypt,  and  in  Babylonia-Assyria  the  monarch  was  even 
more  dominant  and  absolute.  For  the  Pharaohs  shared 
architecture,  painting,  and  sculpture  with  the  gods;  but  the 
Sargonids  and  their  predecessors  seem  to  have  arrogated  the 
most  of  these  things  to  themselves  alone. 

Religion  was  perhaps  as  real  in  Babylonia-Assyria  as  in 
Egypt,  but  it  was  not  so  apparent  in  art.     Certain  genii, 


14  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

called  gods,  and  other  monstrous  looking  creatures,  called 
demons,  appear  frequently  on  the  cylinders  and  in  the  bas- 
reliefs.  They  symbolize  the  warfare  between  good  and  evil, 
between  light  and  darkness,  or  they  illustrate  legend  or  myth; 
but  they  are  hardly  so  representative  or  directly  illustrative 
as  the  religious  figures  of  Egyptian  art.  Nor  was  there  any 
such  quantity  or  space  given  to  religious  demonstration  in 
art  here  as  in  Egypt.  Babylonia  was  more  heedful  of  religion 
and  its  priesthood  than  the  later  Assyria,  which  was  devoted 
to  the  king  and  warfare;  but  both  countries  were,  either 
originally  or  by  influence,  Semitic  in  their  peoples,  and  religion 
with  them  was  more  a  matter  of  the  spirit  than  the  senses  — 
an  image  in  the  mind  rather  than  an  image  in  metal  or  stone. 
Literature  was  their  chief  medium  of  expression  rather  than 
art.  Even  the  temple  was  not  elaborately  eloquent  with  the 
actions  and  deeds  of  the  gods  set  forth  in  form  and  color,  and 
the  tomb,  that  fruitful  source  of  art  in  Egypt,  was  in  Baby- 
lonia undecorated  and  in  Assyria  unknown.  It  is  not  yet 
known  what  the  Assyrians  did  with  their  dead,  unless  they 
carried  them  back  to  the  fatherland  of  the  race,  the  Persian 
Gulf  region,  as  the  native  tribes  of  Mesopotamia  do  to  this 
day. 

ART  MOTIVES:  As  in  Egypt,  there  were  two  motives  for 
art  —  illustration  and  decoration.  Religion  was  not  the 
leading  motive.  In  Assyria  the  king  attracted  the  greatest 
attention.  He  was  the  one  autocrat  and  his  palaces  were 
more  sumptuous  by  far  than  the  temples  of  the  gods.  The 
countless  bas-reliefs,  cut  on  soft  stone  slabs,  were  pages  from 
the  history  of  the  monarch  in  peace  and  war,  in  council,  in 
the  chase,  or  in  processional  rites.  Beside  him  and  around 
him  his  officers  came  in  for  a  share  of  the  background  glory. 
Occasionally  the  common  people  had  representations  of  their 
lives  and  their  pursuits,  but  the  main  subject  of  all  the  Meso- 
potamian  valley  art  was  the  king  and  his  doings.     Sculpture 


BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN  PAINTING 


15 


and  painting  were  largely  illustrations  accompanying  a  history 
written  in  the  ever-present  cuneiform  characters. 

But,  while  serving  as  history,  like  the  picture-writings  of 
the  Egyptians,  this  illustration  was  likewise  decoration,  and 
was  designed  with  that  end  in  view.  Rows  upon  rows  of 
partly  colored  bas-reliefs  were  arranged  like  a  dado  along  the 
palace-wall,  and  above  them  wall-paintings,  or  glazed  tiles 


FIG.   6.  —  WILD   GOATS.      BRITISH   MUSEUM. 
(FROM   PERROT  AND   CHTPIEZ.) 

in  patterns,  carried  out  the  color  scheme.  Almost  all  of  the 
color  has  now  disappeared,  but  it  must  have  been  brilliant  at 
one  time,  and  was  doubtless  in  harmony  with  the  architecture. 
Both  painting  and  sculpture  were  subordinate  to  and  depend- 
ent upon  architecture.  Palace-building  was  the  chief  pursuit, 
and  the  other  arts  were  called  in  mainly  as  adjuncts  —  orna- 
mental records  of  the  king  who  built. 

THE  TYPE,  FORM,  COLOR:  There  were  apparently  only 
two  distinct  faces  in  Assyrian  art  —  one  with  and  one  without 
a  beard.     Neither  of  them  was  a  portrait  except  as  attributes 


1 6  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

or  inscriptions  designated.  The  type  was  unendingly  repeated. 
Women  are  seen  in  only  a  few  isolated  cases,  and  even  these 
are  doubtful.  The  warrior,  a  strong,  coarse-membered, 
heavily-muscled  creation,  with  a  heavy,  fierce,  Semitic  face, 
appeared  everywhere.  The  figure  was  placed  in  profile,  with 
eye  and  bust  twisted  to  show  the  front  view,  and  the  long  feet 
projected  one  beyond  the  other,  as  in  the  Nile  pictures.  This 
was  the  Babylonian-Assyrian  ideal  of  strength,  dignity,  and 
majesty,  established  probably  in  the  early  ages,  and  repeated 
for  centuries  with  some  few  characteristic  variations.  The 
figure  was  usually  given  in  motion,  walking,  or  riding,  and 
had  little  of  that  grace  seen  in  Egyptian  painting,  but  in  its 
place  a  great  deal  of  rude  strength.  In  modelling,  the  human 
form  was  not  so  knowingly  rendered  as  the  animal.  The 
long  Eastern  clothing  probably  prevented  the  close  study  of 
the  figure.  This  failure  in  anatomical  exactness  was  balanced 
in  part  by  minute  details  in  the  dress  and  accessories,  produc- 
tive of  a  rich  ornamental  effect.  As  for  the  animals  such  as 
the  lions,  goats,  wild  asses,  dogs,  they  are  given  in  the  bas- 
reliefs  with  superb  force  and  characterization.  Nothing  could 
be  finer  or  more  expressive  of  life  than  some  of  these  animals 
shown  in  the  hunting  scenes  upon  the  slabs  now  in  the  British 
Museum. 

Hard  stone  was  not  found  in  the  upper  Mesopotamian 
regions  and  even  in  the  Chaldaean  country  lower  down,  it 
appeared  in  limited  quantities.  Temples  were  built  of  burnt 
brick,  bas-reliefs  were  made  upon  alabaster  slabs  and  height- 
ened by  coloring,  and  painting  was  largely  upon  tiles,  with 
mineral  paints,  afterward  glazed  by  fire.  These  glazed  brick 
or  tiles,  with  figured  designs,  were  fixed  upon  the  walls,  arches, 
and  archivolts  by  bitumen  mortar,  and  made  up  the  first 
mosaics  of  which  we  have  record.  There  was  a  further  paint- 
ing upon  plaster  in  distemper,  and  upon  pottery,  of  which 
some  few  traces  remain.     It  did  not  differ  in  design  from  the 


BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN   PAINTING 


17 


bas-reliefs  or  the  tile  mosaics.  Sometimes  terra-cotta  was 
embedded  in  the  plaster  and  the  effect  of  the  walls  was  height- 
ened by  the  use  of  gold  and  bronze. 

The  subjects  used  were  the  Babylonian-Assyrian  type,  shown 
somewhat  slighter  in  painting  than  in  sculpture,  animals,  birds, 
trees,  flowers,  rosettes  and  arbitrary  patterns.  The  paintings 
were    usually    not   attempts    at    naturalistic    representation. 


FIG.    7.  —  ENAMELLED   BRICK.       FROM   NLMROUD. 
(FROM   PERROT  AND   CHIPIEZ.) 

The  color  was  arbitrary  and  there  was  little  perspective,  light- 
and-shade,  or  relief.  Heavy  outline  bands  of  color  appeared 
about  the  object,  and  the  prevailing  hues  were  yellow,  blue, 
green,  red.  This  brilliant  if  arbitrary  coloring  was  also  used 
on  the  outside  of  the  temples,  the  different  stones  or  platforms 
being  painted  in  different  colors.  It  was  all  highly  decorative 
and  no  doubt  used  mainly  for  that  purpose  though  there  was 
probably  some  symbolism  behind  it.  As  regards  the  bas-re- 
liefs there  was  possibly  more  feeling  for  perspective  and  space 


i8 


HISTORY   OF  PAINTING 


as  shown  in  the  mountain  landscapes  and  water,  than  in 
Egyptian  art;  but,  in  the  main,  there  was  no  advance  upon 
Egypt.  There  was  a  difference  which  was  not  necessarily 
a  development.  Painting,  as  we  know  the  art  to-day,  wTas 
hardly  practised  in   Babylonia-Assyria.     It  was  never  free 


FIG.    8.  —  ENAMELLED   BRICK,   BLUE   GROUND. 
(FROM   PERROT  AND   CHIPIEZ.) 


NIMROUD. 


from  a  servitude  to  architecture  and  sculpture;  it  was  ham- 
pered by  conventionalities;  and  the  painter  was  more  artisan 
than  artist,  having  little  freedom  or  individuality. 

HISTORIC  PERIODS:  Babylonia  is  a  name  that  includes 
Chaldaea  and  the  early  provinces  of  the  Persian  Gulf  region. 

The  First  Empire  in  the  Tigris-Euphrates  valley  was  in  this 
lower  Persian  Gulf  region  and  had  its  seat  at  Babylon. 
It  began  historically  (for  us  at  least)  with  the  Ur  dynasty 
about  2500  B.C.  This  was  a  Chalda?an  or  Sumerian  dynasty 
and  the  civilization  it  produced  was  not  only  original  but 
produced  an  original  art.     Its  sculpture   (especially  in   the 


BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN  PAINTING  19 

Tello  heads),  its  cylinder  cutting  and  gems,  and  presumably 
its  painting,  were  more  realistic  and  individual  than  any 
other  in  the  valley.  Assyria,  lying  higher  up  in  the  valley 
and  coming  later  than  Babylonia,  was  the  conqueror  and  heir 
of  Babylonia.     With  Assyria  came  the 

Second  Empire:  Assyria  was  made  up  of  many  conquered 
provinces  —  an  expansion  of  empire  as  it  were  ;  but  the  Assyr- 
ian civilization  was  derived  from  and  was  beholden  to  the  old 
Babylonian  civilization.  There  were  two  distinct  periods  of 
this  Second  Empire.  The  first  period  dates  from  about 
1450  B.C.  and  in  art  shows  a  great  profusion  of  strong  bas- 
reliefs.  The  second  period  begins  with  Tiglath-pileser  III, 
about  745  B.C.  and  is  the  period  of  great  empire  expansion. 
In  art  the  realistic  conceptions  of  the  time  of  Assur-nazir-pal 
III  were  continued  under  Sargon;  but  later  on,  under  Assur- 
banipal,  much  decorative  effect  with  elaborate  detail  succeeded. 
After  this  empire  the  Babylonian  provinces  gained  the  ascend- 
ency again,  and  Babylon,  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  became 
the  first  city  of  Asia.  But  the  new  Babylon  did  not  last  long. 
It  fell  before  Cyrus  and  the  Persians  538  B.C.  Again,  as  in 
Egypt,  the  earliest  art  appears  the  purest  and  the  simplest, 
and  the  years  of  Babylonian- Assyrian  history  known  to  us 
carry  a  record  of  change  rather  than  of  progress  in  art. 

EXTANT  REMAINS :  The  most  valuable  collections  of  Babylo- 
nian-Assyrian art  are  to  be  found  in  the  Louvre  and  the  British 
Museum.  The  other  large  museums  of  Europe  have  collections  in  this 
department,  but  all  of  them  combined  are  little  compared  with  the 
treasures  that  still  lie  buried  in  the  mounds  of  the  Tigris-Euphrates 
valley.  Excavations  have  been  made  at  Mugheir,  Warka,  Khorsabad, 
Kouyunjik,  and  elsewhere,  but  many  difficulties  have  thus  far  rendered 
systematic  work  impossible.  The  complete  history  of  Babylonia- 
Assyria  and  its  art  has  yet  to  be  written.  For  a  summary  of  the 
excavations  see  Michaelis:    A  Century  of  Archaeological  Discoveries. 


20 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 


PERSIAN   PAINTING 

Books  Recommended  :  As  before  cited,  Babelon,  Lenor- 
mant;  Dieulafoy,  V  Art  Antique  de  la  Perse;  Flandin  et 
Coste,  Voyage  en  Perse;  Gayet,  UArt  Person;  Justi,  Geschichte 
des  alien  Persiens;  Maspero,  The  Passing  of  the  Empires;  Per- 
rot  and  Chipiez,  History  of  Art  in  Persia;  Texier,  Voyage  en 
Asie  Mineure  et  en  Perse. 

HISTORY  AND  ART  MOTIVES:  The  Medes  and  Persians 
were  the  natural  inheritors  of  Assyrian  civilization,  but  they 


f3 

Jfc     si:,    ate...     "$&     Ms,     a**     Jfe  . 

s& 

* 

.*. 

.*  3 

£fc 

•y*  •N^jBy  *  .-t ■  -£?*<» v&  t  r^S— 

£;':>^'; 

• 

.ait. 

/ 

Htafe. 

MMHMI 

*r 

jakj 

m 

^r     ?$$<&*»          *i4^* 

Cm 

.£*■ 

La 

3 

bT 

1 

IMWIIMtllllU 

■MHMMMK 

#  *%  9  m  %._;%■ . mW- 

jfe     .ffi       3fr 

** 

^  j 

Fig.  o. 


•ENAMELLED  brick,  yellow  and  blue, 
(from  perrot  and  chipiez.) 


NIMR0UD. 


did  not  improve  their  birthright.  The  Medes  soon  lost  their 
power.  Cyrus  conquered  them,  and  established  the  powerful 
Persian  monarchy  upheld  for  two  hundred  years  by  Cambyses, 
Darius,  and  Xerxes.  Substantially  the  same  conditions  sur- 
rounded the  Persians  as  the  Assyrians  —  that  is,  so  far 
as  art  production  was  concerned.  Their  conceptions  of  life 
were  similar,  and  their  use  of  art  was  for  historic  illustration 
of  kingly  doings  and  ornamental  embellishment  of  kingly 
palaces.  Both  sculpture  and  painting  were  accessories  of 
architecture. 


BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN  PAINTING 


21 


Of  Median  art  nothing  remains.  The  Persians  left  the 
record,  but  it  was  not  wholly  of  their  own  invention,  nor 
was  it  very  extensive  or  brilliant.  It  had  little  originality 
about  it,  and  was  really  only  an  echo  of  Assyria.  The 
sculptors  and  painters  copied  their  Assyrian  predecessors, 
repeating  at  Persepolis  what  had  been  better  told  at 
Nineveh. 


FIG.    IO.  —  PERSIAN   ARCHERS.      LOUVRE,    PARIS. 


TYPES  AND  TECHNIQUE:  The  same  subjects,  types,  and 
technical  methods  in  bas-relief,  tile,  and  painting  on  plaster 
were  followed  under  Darius  as  under  Shalmanezer.  But 
in  the  imitation  the  warrior,  the  winged  monsters,  the  animals 
all  lost  something  of  their  air  of  brutal  defiance  and  their 
strength   of   modelling.     Heroes    still    walked    in    procession 


2  2  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

along  the  bas-reliefs  and  glazed  tiles,  but  the  figure  was  smaller, 
more  effeminate,  the  hair  and  beard  were  not  so  long,  the 
drapery  fell  in  slightly  indicated  folds  at  times,  and  there 
was  a  profusion  of  ornamental  detail.  Some  of  this  detail 
and  some  modifications  in  the  figure  showed  the  influence 
of  foreign  nations  such  as  that  of  Greece;  but,  in  the  main, 
as  in  its  beginnings,  Persian  art  followed  in  the  footsteps 
of  Assyrian  art.  Later  on  Egyptian,  Greek,  and  Asia  Minor 
influences  became  strongly  marked  in  it.  As  the  empire 
extended  itself  the  modifying  effect  of  different  peoples  in- 
corporated in  the  empire  was  impressed  upon  the  art.  It 
became  mixed,  hybrid,  and  finally  degenerate.  It  was  the  last 
reflection  of  Mesopotamian  splendor.  For  with  the  conquest 
of  Persia  by  Alexander  the  book  of  monumental  art  in  that 
valley  was  practically  closed,  and,  under  Islam,  it  remains 
closed  to  this  day. 

EXTANT  REMAINS:  Persian  painting  is  something  about 
which  little  is  known  because  little  remains.  The  Louvre  contains 
some  reconstructed  friezes  made  in  mosaics  of  stamped  brick  and 
square  tile,  showing  figures  of  lions  and  a  number  of  archers.  The 
coloring  is  particularly  rich,  and  may  give  some  idea  of  Persian  pig- 
ments. Aside  from  the  chief  museums  of  Europe  the  bulk  of  Persian 
art  is  still  seen  half-buried  in  the  ruins  of  Persepolis  and  elsewhere. 

PHOENICIAN,  CYPRIOTE,  AND  ASIA  MINOR  PAINTING 

Books  Recommended:  As  before  cited,  Babelon,  Duncker, 
Lenormant;  Burrows,  Discoveries  in  Crete;  Cesnola,  Cypriote 
Antiquities  in  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art;  Cyprus;  Evans, 
Script  a  Manoa;  Garstang,  The  Land  of  the  Hittites;  Messer- 
schmidt,  The  Hittites;  Movers,  Die  Phonizier;  Ohnefalsch- 
Richter,  Kypros,  the  Bible,  and  Homer;  Perrot  and  Chipiez, 
History  of  Art  in  Phoenicia  and  Cyprus;  History  of  Art  in 
Phrygia,  Lydia,  etc.;  History  of  Art  in  Sardinia,  Judea,  Syria  and 
Asia  Minor;  Renan,  Mission  de  Phcnicie;  Sayce,  The  Hittites. 

THE  TRADING  NATIONS:  The  coast-lying  nations  of  the 
Eastern  Mediterranean  were  hardly  original  or  creative  nations 


BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN  PAINTING 


23 


in  a  large  sense.  They  were  at  different  times  the  conquered 
dependencies  of  Egypt,  Assyria,  Persia,  Greece,  and  their 
lands  were  but  bridges  over  which  armies  passed  from  east 
to  west  or  from  west  to  east.  Located  on  the  Mediterranean 
between  the  great  civilizations  of  antiquity  they  naturally 
adapted  themselves  to  circumstances,  and  became  the  middle- 


FIG.    II.  —  CYPRIOTE    PAINTED    VASE. 
(FROM    PERROT   AND    CHIPIEZ.) 


men,  the  brokers,  traders,  and  carriers  of  the  ancient  world. 
Their  lands  were  not  favorable  to  agriculture,  but  their  sea- 
coasts  rendered  commerce  easy  and  lucrative.  They  made 
a  kingdom  of  the  sea,  and  their  means  of  livelihood  were  gath- 
ered from  it.  There  is  no  record  that  the  Egyptians  ever 
traversed  the  Mediterranean,  the  Assyrians  were  not  sailors, 
the  Greeks  had  not  yet  arisen,  and  so  probably  Phoenicia  and 
her  neighbors,  in  the  early  days,  had  matters  their  own  way. 


24  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

Colonies  and  trading  stations  were  established  at  Cyprus, 
Carthage,  Sardinia,  the  Greek  islands,  and  the  Greek  main- 
land, and  not  only  Eastern  goods  but  Eastern  ideas  were 
thus  carried  to  the  West. 

Politically,  socially,  and  religiously  these  small  middle 
nations  were  not  important.  They  simply  adapted  their 
politics  or  faith  to  the  nation  that  for  the  time  had  them  under 
its  heel.  What  semi-original  religion  they  possessed  was  an 
amalgamation  of  the  religions  of  other  nations.  Their  art 
was  of  similar  constitution  and  their  gods  of  bronze,  terra- 
cotta, and  enamel  were  irreverently  sold  in  the  market  like 
any  other  produce. 

ART  MOTIVES  AND  METHODS:  Building,  carving,  and 
painting  were  practised  among  the  coastwise  nations,  but 
upon  no  such  extensive  scale  as  in  either  Egypt  or  Assyria. 
The  mere  fact  that  they  were  people  of  the  sea  rather  than  of 
the  land  precluded  extensive  or  concentrated  development. 
Politically  Phoenicia  was  divided  among  five  cities,  and  her 
artistic  strength  was  distributed  in  a  similar  manner.  Such 
art  as  was  produced  showed  the  religious  and  decorative 
motives,  and  in  its  spiritless  materialistic  make-up,  the  com- 
mercial motive.  It  was  at  the  best  a  hybrid,  mongrel  art, 
borrowed  from  many  sources  and  distributed  to  many  points 
of  the  compass.  At  one  time  it  had  a  strong  Assyrian  cast, 
at  another  an  Egyptian  cast,  and  after  Greece  arose  it  accepted 
a  retroactive  influence  from  there.  Future  research  may  dis- 
close that  it  was  also  susceptible  to  influences  from  Cretan 
and  Hittite  art.  Conclusions  as  to  any  of  this  early  Med- 
iterranean art  cannot  as  yet  be  accepted  with  certainty. 

It  is  impossible  to  characterize  the  Phoenician  type,  and 
even  the  Cypriote  type,  though  more  pronounced,  varies  so 
with  the  different  influences  that  it  has  no  very  striking 
individuality.  Technically  both  the  Phoenician  and  Cypriote 
were  fair  workmen  in  bronze  and  stone,  and  doubtless  taught 


BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN   PAINTING 


25 


many  technical  methods  to  the  early  Greeks,  besides  making 
known  to  them  those  deities  afterward  adopted  under  the 
names  of  Aphrodite,  Adonis,  and  Heracles,  and  familiarizing 
them  with  the  art  forms  of  Egypt  and  Assyria. 

As  for  painting,  there  was  undoubtedly  figured  decoration 
upon  walls  of  stone  and  plaster,  but  there  is  not  enough  left 
to  us  from  all  the  small  nations  like  Phoenicia,  Judea,  Cyprus, 


FIG.    12.  —  CYPRIOTE   VASE  DECORATION. 
(FROM   PERROT  AND   CHIPIEZ.) 


and  the  kingdoms  of  Asia  Minor,  put  together,  to  patch  up 
a  disjointed  history.  The  first  lands  to  meet  the  spoiler, 
their  very  ruins  have  perished.  All  that  there  is  of  painting 
comes  to  us  in  broken  potteries  and  color  traces  on  statuary 
and  sarcophagi.  The  remains  of  sculpture  and  architecture 
are  of  course  better  preserved.  None  of  this  intermediate  art 
holds  much  rank  by  virture  of  its  inherent  worth.  It  is  its 
influence  upon  the  West  —  the  ideas,  subjects,  and  methods 
it  imparted  to  the  Greeks  —  that  gives  it  value  in  art  history. 
CRETAN  ART :  Recent  discoveries  at  Cnossos  and  Phaestus 
give  much  importance  to  Crete  as  a  centre  of  ancient  civiliza- 


26  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

tion  and  art.  During  the  second  millennium  it  was  at  its 
height  and  probably  influenced  by  its  art  all  the  surrounding 
nations,  especially  the  Mycenaean  dwellers  in  Greece.  My- 
cenaean art  itself  can  be  traced  almost  directly  to  the  Middle 
and  Late  Minoan  art  of  Crete.  Painting  is  chiefly  repre- 
sented by  the  frescos  on  palace  walls  and  by  ceramic  decoration 
upon  vases,  tablets,  and  the  like.  The  style  of  work  and  type 
of  figure  are  reminiscent  of  both  Egypt  and  Greece,  but  with 
a  Cretan  originality  about  them.  Future  excavations  in 
Crete  and  Cyrene  may  change  former  theories  about  Med- 
iterranean civilization  and  throw  new  light  on  the  beginnings 
of  Greek  art.  It  is  not  impossible  that  all  the  so-called  My- 
cenaean art,  found  at  Mycenae,  Tiryns,  and  elsewhere,  is  not 
Greek  at  all  but  commercial  art  sent  out  from  Crete. 

HITTITE  ART:  The  chief  remains  of  Hittite  art,  now 
known  to  us,  are  rock-cut  sculptures.  There  is  no  trace 
of  painting,  though  doubtless  it  once  existed.  Future  excava- 
tions in  the  Hittite  country  of  Asia  Minor  may,  again,  throw 
light  on  the  origins  of  early  Greek  art.  At  present  nothing 
distinctively  Greek  can  be  traced  further  back  than  about  Soo 
B.C.  There  is  no  link  —  perhaps  no  connection  whatever  — 
between  the  so-called  Mycenaean  art,  supposed  to  be  of  early 
Greek  origin,  and  the  later  Greek  work  that  began  to  take 
form  about  800  B.C. 

EXTANT  REMAINS:  In  painting  chiefly  the  vases  in  the  Metro- 
politan Museum,  New  York,  the  Louvre,  British  and  Berlin  Museums. 
These  give  a  poor  and  incomplete  idea  of  painting  in  Asia  Minor, 
Phoenicia,  and  her  colonies.  The  terra-cottas,  figurines  in  bronze, 
and  sculptures  can  be  studied  to  more  advantage.  The  best  collec- 
tion of  Cypriote  antiquities  is  in  the  Metropolitan  Museum,  New 
York.  A  collection  of  Judaic  art  is  in  the  Louvre.  There  is  a  val- 
uable collection  of  Asia-Minor  art  in  the  Constantinople  Museum,  and 
of  the  so-called  Mycenaean  art  in  the  Athens  Museum. 


CHAPTER   III 

GREEK  PAINTING 

Books  Recommended:  Baumeister,  Denkmaler  des  klas- 
sischen  Altertums  —  article  "Malerei"',  Brunn,  Geschichte 
der  griechischen  Kilns  tier;  Griechische  Kunstgeschichte;  Cata- 
logue of  Greek  Vases  in  British  Museum;  Collignon,  Manuel 
d'Archaeologie  Grecque;  Mythologie  figuree  de  la  Grece;  Cros 
et  Henry,  U  Encaustique  et  les  autres  procedes  de  Peinture  chez 
les  Anciens;  Endt,  Beitrdge  zur  ionischen  Vasenmalerei;  Gard- 
ner, Principles  of  Greek  Art;  Girard,  La  Peinture  Antique; 
Harrison  and  MacColl,  Greek  Vase  Paintings;  Murray,  Hand- 
book of  Greek  Archceology;  Overbeck,  Antiken  Schriftquellen 
zur  geschichte  der  bildenen  Kilnste  hie  den  Griechen;  Perrot 
and  Chipiez,  History  of  Art  in  Primitive  Greece;  Reinach, 
Repertoire  des  vases  peints  grecs  et  etrusques;  Rayet  and 
Collignon,  Histoire  de  la  Ceramique  Grecque;  Walters,  Art  of 
the  Greeks;  History  of  Ancient  Pottery;  Woerman,  Die  Land- 
schaft  in  der  Kilnst  der  antiken  Volker;  see  also  books  on  Etruscan 
and  Roman  painting. 

GREECE  AND  THE  GREEKS :  The  origin  of  the  Greek  race 
is  not  positively  known.  It  is  reasonably  supposed  that  the 
early  settlers  in  Greece  came  from  the  region  of  Asia  Minor, 
either  across  the  Hellespont  or  the  sea,  and  populated  the 
Greek  islands  and  the  mainland.  When  this  was  done  has 
been  matter  of  much  conjecture.  The  early  history  is  lost, 
but  art  remains  go  to  show  that  in  the  period  before  Homer  the 
Greeks  were  an  established  race  with  habits  and  customs 
distinctly  individual.  Egyptian,  Asiatic,  and  island  influences 
are  apparent  in  their  art  at  this  early  time,  but  there  are, 


28  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

nevertheless,  the  marks  of  a  race  peculiarly  apart  from  all  the 
races  of  the  older  world. 

The  development  of  the  Greek  people  was  probably  helped 
by  favorable  climate  and  soil,  by  commerce  and  conquest, 
by  republican  institutions  and  political  faith,  by  freedom  of 
mind  and  of  body;  but  all  these  together  are  not  sufficient 
to  account  for  the  keenness  of  intellect,  the  purity  of  taste, 
and  the  skill  in  accomplishment  which  showed  in  every  branch 
of  Greek  life.  The  cause  lies  deeper  in  the  fundamental 
make-up  of  the  Greek  mind,  and  its  eternal  aspiration  toward 
mental,  moral,  and  physical  ideals.  Perfect  mind,  perfect 
body,  perfect  conduct  in  this  world  were  sought-for  ideals. 
The  Greeks  aspired  to  completeness.  The  course  of  education 
and  race  development  trained  them  physically  as  athletes 
and  warriors,  mentally  as  philosophers,  law-makers,  poets, 
artists,  morally  as  heroes  whose  lives  and  actions  emulated 
those  of  the  gods,  and  were  almost  perfect  for  this  world. 

ART  MOTIVES:  Neither  the  monarchy  nor  the  priesthood 
commanded  the  services  of  the  artist  in  Greece,  as  in  Assyria 
and  Egypt.  There  was  no  monarch  in  an  oriental  sense,  and 
the  chosen  leaders  of  the  Greeks  never,  until  the  late  days, 
arrogated  art  to  themselves.  It  was  something  for  all  the 
people. 

In  religion  there  was  a  pantheon  of  gods  established  and 
worshipped  from  the  earliest  ages,  but  these  gods  were  more 
like  epitomes  of  Greek  ideals  than  spiritual  beings.  They 
were  the  personified  virtues  of  the  Greeks,  exemplars  of 
perfect  living;  and  in  worshipping  them  the  Greek  was  really 
worshipping  order,  conduct,  repose,  dignity,  perfect  life. 
The  gods  and  heroes,  as  types  of  moral  and  physical  qualities, 
were  continually  represented  in  an  allegorical  or  legendary 
manner.  Athene  represented  noble  warfare,  Zeus  was 
majestic  dignity  and  power,  Aphrodite  love,  Phoebus  song, 
Nike  triumph,  and  all  the  lesser  gods,  nymphs,  and  fauns 


GREEK   PAINTING 


29 


stood  for  beauties  or  virtues  of  nature  or  of  life.  The  great 
bulk  of  Greek  architecture,  sculpture,  and  painting  was  put 
forth  to  honor  these  gods  or  heroes,  and  by  so  doing  the  artist 


FIG.    13. 


WALL   PAINTING   FROM   CERVETRI.      BRITISH    MUSEUM. 


illustrated  the  national  ideals  and  honored  himself.  The 
first  motive  of  Greek  art,  then,  was  to  praise  Hellas  and  the 
Hellenic  view  of  life.  In  a  sense  it  was  a  religious  motive, 
but  had  little  of  that  spiritual  significance  and  belief  about  it 
which  ruled  in  Egypt,  and  later  on  in  Italy. 


30  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

A  second  and  ever-present  motive  in  Greek  painting  was 
decoration.  This  appears  in  the  tomb  pottery  of  the  earliest 
ages,  and  was  carried  on  down  to  the  latest  times.  Vase 
painting,  wall  painting,  tablet  and  sculpture  painting  were 
all  done  with  a  decorative  motive  in  view.  Even  the  easel 
or  panel  pictures  had  some  decorative  effect  about  them, 
though  perhaps  they  were  primarily  intended  to  convey  ideas 
other  than  those  of  form  and  color. 

SUBJECTS  AND  METHODS:  The  gods  and  heroes,  their 
lives  and  adventures,  formed  the  early  subjects  of  Greek 
painting.  Certain  themes  taken  from  the  "Iliad"  and 
the  "Odyssey"  were  as  frequently  shown  as,  afterward,  the 
Annunciations  and  Crucifixions  in  Italian  painting.  The 
traditional  subjects,  the  Centaurs  and  Lapiths,  the  Amazon 
war,  Theseus  and  Ariadne,  Perseus  and  Andromeda,  were' 
frequently  depicted.  Humanity  and  actual  Greek  life  came 
in  for  its  share.  Single  figures,  still-life,  genre,  caricature, 
all  were  shown,  and  as  painting  neared  the  Alexandrian  age 
a  semi-realistic  portraiture  came  into  vogue. 

The  materials  employed  by  the  Greeks  and  their  methods 
of  work  are  somewhat  difficult  to  ascertain,  because  there  are 
few  Greek  pictures,  except  those  on  the  vases,  left  to  us. 
From  the  confusing  accounts  of  the  ancient  writers,  the  vases, 
some  Greek  grave  tablets,  and  the  Roman  paintings  imitative 
of  the  Greek,  we  may  gain  a  general  idea.  The  early  Greek 
work  was  largely  devoted  to  pottery  and  tomb  decoration,  in 
which  much  in  manner  and  method  was  perhaps  borrowed 
from  Crete,  Phoenicia,  and  Egypt.  Later  on,  painting  appeared 
in  flat  outline  on  stone  or  terra-cotta  slabs,  sometimes  repre- 
senting processional  scenes,  as  in  Egypt,  and  doubtless  done 
in  a  hybrid  fresco  similar  to  the  Cretan  method.  Wall  paint- 
ings were  done  in  fresco  and  distemper,  probably  upon  the 
walls  themselves,  and  also  upon  panels  afterward  let  into 
the  wall.     Encaustic  painting  (color  mixed  with  wax  upon  the 


GREEK  PAINTING  3 1 

panel  and  fused  with  a  hot  spatula)  came  in  with  the  Sicyonian 
school.  It  is  possible  that  the  oil  medium  was  known,  but 
not  probable  that  it  was  ever  used  extensively. 

There  is  no  doubt  about  the  Greeks  being  expert  drafts- 
men, though  this  does  not  appear  until  late  in  history.  They 
knew  the  outlines  well,  and  drew  them  with  force  and  grace. 
That  they  modelled  in  pronounced  relief  is  more  questionable. 


FIG.    14.  —  VASE   PAINTING.       STYLE   OF   POLYGNOTUS.      LOUVRE. 

Light-and-shade  was  certainly  employed  in  the  figure,  but 
not  in  any  modern  way.  Perspective  in  both  figures  and  land- 
scape was  limited  in  scope.  The  landscape  was  at  first  sym- 
bolic and  rarely  got  beyond  a  decorative  background  for  the 
figure.  Greek  composition  we  know  little  about,  but  infer 
from  the  vases  that  it  was  largely  a  series  of  balances,  a  sym- 
metrical adjustment  of  objects  to  fill  a  given  space.  In 
atmosphere,  sunlight,  shadow,  and  those  peculiarly  sensuous 
charms  that  belong  to  painting,  there  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  the  Greeks  approached  the  moderns.  Their  interest 
was  chiefly  centred  in  the  human  figure.  Landscape,  with 
its  many  beauties,  was  reserved  for  modern  hands  to  disclose. 


32  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

Color  was  used  in  abundance,  without  doubt,  but  it  was 
probably  limited  to  the  leading  hues,  with  little  of  that  refine- 
ment or  delicacy  known  in  painting  to-day. 

ART  HISTORY :  For  the  history  of  Greek  painting  we  have 
to  rely  upon  the  words  of  Pliny,  Plutarch,  Quintilian,  Lucian, 
Cicero,  Pausanias,  Vitruvius.  Their  accounts  appear  to  be 
partly  substantiated  by  the  vase  paintings,  and  such  few 
drawings  on  stone,  with  Roman  frescos,  as  remain  to  us. 
There  is  no  date  of  beginning  that  can  be  relied  upon,  nor  is 
there  any  consecutive  or  connected  narrative.  In  its  place 
there  is  much  improbable  anecdote  and  untrustworthy  legend. 
The  origin  of  painting  with  the  Greeks  is  unknown,  but  it 
is  fair  to  infer  that  the  knowledge  of  it  was  brought  to  the 
Greek  mainland  by  ships  from  the  neighboring  islands,  such 
as  Crete,  or  the  distant  coasts,  such  as  Egypt  or  Phoenicia. 
At  first  it  was  employed  on  pottery,  terra-cotta  panels,  and 
rude  sculpture.  It  developed  faster  than  sculpture  perhaps; 
but  were  there  anything  of  importance  left  to  judge  from, 
we  should  probably  find  that  it  developed  in  much  the  same 
way  as  sculpture.  Down  to  500  B.C.  there  was  little  more 
than  outline  filled  in  with  flat  monochromatic  paint  and  with 
a  decorative  effect  similar,  perhaps,  to  that  of  the  vase  paint- 
ings. After  that  date  come  the  more  important  names  of 
artists  mentioned  by  the  ancient  writers.  It  is  difficult  to 
assign  these  artists  to  certain  periods  or  schools,  owing  to  the 
insufficient  knowledge  we  have  about  them.  The  following 
classifications  and  assignments  are  therefore  given  subject 
to  correction. 

OLDER  ATTIC  SCHOOL:  The  first  painter  of  rank  was 
Polygnotus  of  Thasos  (fl.  470-455  B.C.),  sometimes  called 
the  founder  of  Greek  painting,  because  perhaps  he  was  one  of 
the  first  important  painters  in  Greece  proper.  He  seems  to 
have  been  a  good  outline  draftsman,  producing  figures  in 
profile,  with  little  attempt  at  relief  or  light-and-shade.     His 


GREEK  PAINTING  33 

colors  were  local  tones,  but  probably  more  like  nature  and 
more  varied  than  anything  in  Egyptian  painting.  Landscapes, 
buildings,  and  the  like,  were  given  in  a  symbolic  manner 
though  there  was  evidently  some  attempt  at  giving  two  or 
more  planes  to  the  picture.  Perspective  in  the  sense  of 
diminution  of  objects  was  probably  not  attempted  at  this 
time.  Portraiture  was  a  generalization,  and  in  figure  com- 
positions the  names  of  the  principal  characters  were  written 
near  them  for  purposes  of  identification.  The  most  important 
works  of  Polygnotus  were  the  wall  paintings  at  Athens  and 
in  the  Assembly  Room  of  the  Cnidians  at  Delphi.  The  sub- 
jects of  the  latter  related  to  the  Trojan  War  and  the  adventures 
of  Ulysses. 

Opposed  to  this  flat,  unrelieved  style  was  the  work  of  a 
follower,  Agatharchus  of  Athens  (fl.  end  of  fifth  century  B.C.). 
He  is  thought  to  have  been  a  scene-painter,  and  by  the  neces- 
sities of  his  craft  was  led  toward  nature.  Modern  stage  effect 
would  require  a  study  of  perspective,  variation  of  light,  and 
a  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  optics ;  but  there  is  no  reason  to 
believe  that  the  Greek  stage  required  this  or  that  Agatharchus 
produced  it.  He  probably  improved  upon  his  predecessor 
by  rounding  objects  somewhat.  Apollodorus  (fl.  end  of  fifth 
century  B.C.)  perhaps  applied  the  principles  of  Agatharchus 
to  figures.  According  to  Plutarch,  he  was  the  first  to  discover 
variation  in  the  shade  of  colors,  and,  according  to  Pliny, 
the  first  master  to  paint  objects  as  they  appeared  in  nature. 
He  had  the  title  of  skiagraphus  (shadow-painter) ,  and  possibly 
gave  a  semi-natural  background  with  some  perspective. 
This  was  an  improvement,  but  not  a  perfection.  It  is  not 
likely  that  the  backgrounds  were  other  than  conventional 
settings  for  the  figure.  Even  these  were  not  at  once  accepted 
by  the  painters  of  the  period,  but  were  turned  to  profit  in 
the  hands  of  the  followers. 

After  the  Peloponnesian  Wars  the  art  of  painting  seems  to 


34 


HISTORY   OF   PAINTING 


have  flourished  elsewhere  than  in  Athens,  owing  to  the  Athe- 
nian loss  of  supremacy.  Other  schools  sprang  up  in  various 
districts,  and  one  to  call  for  considerable  mention  by  the 
ancient  writers  was  the  Asiatic  or 

IONIAN  SCHOOL,  which  in  reality  had  existed  from  the 
sixth  century.  The  painters  of  this  school  advanced  upon 
the  work  of  Apollodorus  as  regards  realistic  effect.     Zeuxis 


te 


.\ 


FIG.    15.  —  GREEK    AND    AMAZON.      PAINTING   FROM   CORNETO. 


(fl.  420-390  B.C.),  whose  fame  was  at  its  height  during  the 
Peloponnesian  Wars,  seems  to  have  regarded  art  as  a  matter 
of  illusion,  if  one  may  judge  by  the  stories  told  of  his  work. 
The  tale  of  his  painting  a  bunch  of  grapes  so  like  reality  that 
the  birds  came  to  peck  at  it  proves  either  that  the  painter's 
motive  was  deception,  or  that  the  narrator  of  the  tale  picked 
out  the  deceptive  part  of  his  picture  for  admiration.  He 
painted  many  subjects,  like  Helen,  Penelope,  and  many  genre 
pieces   on   panel.     Quintilian    says   he   originated   light-and- 


GREEK  PAINTING  35 

shade,  an  achievement  credited  by  Plutarch  to  Apollodorus. 
It  is  probable  that  he  advanced  light-and-shade. 

In  illusion  he  seems  to  have  been  outdone  by  a  rival,  Par- 
rhasius  (fl.  399  B.C.)  of  Ephesus.  Zeuxis  deceived  the  birds 
with  painted  grapes,  but  Parrhasius  deceived  Zeuxis  with  a 
painted  curtain.  There  must  have  been  knowledge  of  color, 
modelling,  and  relief  to  have  produced  such  an  illusion,  but 
the  aim  was  petty  and  unworthy  of  the  skill.  There  was 
evidently  an  advance  technically,  but  some  decline  in  the  true 
spirit  of  art.  Parrhasius  finally  suffered  defeat  at  the  hands 
of  Timanthes  of  Cythnus,  by  a  Contest  between  Ajax  and 
Ulysses  for  the  Arms  of  Achilles.  Timanthes's  famous  work 
was  the  Sacrifice  of  Iphigenia,  of  which  there  is  a  supposed 
Pompeian  copy. 

SICYONIAN  SCHOOL:  This  school  seems  to  have  sprung 
up  after  the  Peloponnesian  Wars,  and  was  perhaps  founded 
by  Eupompus,  a  contemporary  of  Parrhasius.  His  pupil 
Pamphilus  brought  the  school  to  maturity.  He  apparently 
reacted  from  the  deception  motive  of  Zeuxis  and  Parrhasius, 
and  taught  academic  methods  of  drawing,  composing,  and 
painting.  He  was  also  credited  with  bringing  into  use  the 
encaustic  method  of  painting,  though  it  was  probably  known 
before  his  time.  His  pupil,  Pausias,  possessed  some  freedom 
of  creation  in  genre  and  still-life  subjects.  Pliny  says  he  had 
great  technical  skill,  as  shown  in  the  foreshortening  of  a  black 
ox  by  variations  of  the  black  tones,  and  he  obtained  some 
fame  by  a  figure  of  Methe  (Intoxication)  drinking  from  a  glass, 
the  face  being  seen  through  the  glass.  Again  the  motives 
seem  trifling,  but  again  advancing  technical  power  is  shown. 

THEBAN-ATTIC  SCHOOL:  This  was  the  fourth  school  of 
Greek  painting.  Nicomachus  (fl.  about  360  B.C.),  a  facile 
painter,  was  at  its  head.  His  pupil,  Aristides,  painted  pathetic 
scenes,  and  was  perhaps  as  remarkable  for  teaching  art  to 
the  celebrated  Euphranor  (fl.  360  B.C.)  as  for  his  own  produc- 


36 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 


tions.  Euphranor  had  great  versatility  in  the  arts,  and  in 
painting  was  renowned  for  his  pictures  of  the  Olympian  gods 
at  Athens.  His  successor,  Nicias  (fl.  340-300  B.C.),  was  a 
contemporary  of  Praxiteles,  the  sculptor,  and  was  possibly 
influenced  by  him  in  the  painting  of  female  figures.  He  was 
a  technician  of  ability  in  composition,  light-and-shade,  and 
relief,  and  was  praised  for  the  roundness  of  his  figures.  He 
also  did  some  tinting  of  sculpture,  and  is  said  to  have  tinted 
some  of  the  works  of  Praxiteles. 

LATE  PAINTERS:    Contemporary  with  and  following  these 
last-named  artists  were  some  celebrated  painters  who  really 

belong  to  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Hellenistic 
Period  (323  B.C.).  At 
their  head  was  Apelles, 
the  painter  of  Philip 
and  Alexander,  and  the 
climax  of  Greek  paint- 
ing. He  painted  many 
gods,  heroes,  and  allego- 
ries, with  much  "grace- 
fulness," as  Pliny  puts 
it.  The  Italian  Botti- 
celli, seventeen  hundred 
years  after  him,  tried  to 
reproduce  his  celebrated 
Calumny,  from  Lucian's 
description  of  it.  His  chief  works  were  his  Aphrodite  An- 
adyomene,  carried  to  Rome  by  Augustus,  and  the  portrait 
of  Alexander  with  the  Thunder-bolt.  He  was  undoubtedly 
a  superior  man  technically.  Protogenes  rivalled  him,  if  we 
are  to  believe  Petronius,  by  the  foam  on  a  dog's  mouth 
and  the  wonder  in  the  eye  of  a  startled  pheasant. 
Aetion,  the  painter  of  Alexander's  Marriage  to  Roxana,  was 


FIG.    16.  —  HERCULES   STRANGLING   THE   SERPENTS, 
STYLE   OF   ZEUXIS.      POMPEII. 


GREEK  PAINTING  37 

not  able  to  turn  painting  from  this  deceptive  motive.  After 
Alexander,  it  passed  still  further  into  the  imitative  and  the 
theatrical,  and  when  not  grandiloquent  was  infinitely  little 
over  cobbler-shops  and  huckster-stalls.  Landscape  for  pur- 
poses of  decorative  composition,  and  floor  patterns,  done  in 
mosaic,  came  in  during  the  time  of  the  Diadochi.  There 
were  no  great  names  in  the  latter  days,  and  such  painters  as 
still  flourished  passed  on  to  Rome,  there  to  produce  copies 
of  the  works  of  their  predecessors. 

It  is  hard  to  reconcile  the  unworthy  motive  attributed  to 
Greek  painting  by  the  ancient  writers  with  the  high  aim  of 
Greek  sculpture.  It  is  easier  to  think  (and  it  is  more  probable) 
that  the  writers  knew  very  little  about  art,  and  that  they 
missed  the  spirit  of  Greek  painting  in  admiring  its  insignificant 
details.  That  painting  technically  was  at  a  high  point  of 
perfection  as  regards  the  figure,  even  the  imitative  Roman 
works  suggest,  and  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  in  spirit  it 
was  at  one  time  equally  strong. 

THE  VASES :  The  history  of  Greek  painting  in  its  remains  is 
traced  with  some  accuracy  in  the  decorative  figures  upon  the  vases. 
The  different  classes  of  vases  are  as  follows:  (1)  Mycenaean  or  Earlier : 
These  are  found  on  Greek  soil,  but  antedate  Greek  civilization.  They 
were  possibly  imported  from  Crete  or  Cyprus.  The  decoration  is 
in  tiers,  bands,  and  zigzags,  usually  without  the  human  figure.  (2) 
Geometric  (900-700  b.c  ):  So  called  because  of  its  geometric  patterns. 
It  shows  triangular,  meander,  and  other  designs.  It,  again,  probably 
dates  before  what  we  know  as  historic  Greece.  Sometimes  called 
Dipylon  ware.  (3)  Black-Figured  Ware  (700-480  B.C.):  At  first 
this  showed  oriental  motives  —  the  lotus,  griffon,  winged  figures  — 
in  horizontal  bands.  Figures  were  later  introduced  in  profile  with  a 
wash  of  black  paint,  upon  which  details  of  clothing  or  hair  or  flesh 
were  added  in  red  or  white.  Many  of  these  vases  are  signed.  Some- 
times known  as  Ionic  and  also  Corinthian  ware.  (4)  Red-Figured  Ware 
(525-300  B.C.):  The  red  ground  of  the  vase  is  now  used  for  the  figures 
—  the  background  being  painted  black.  The  figures  are  beautifully 
drawn,  the  designs  well-fitted  for  vases.  This  ware  was  produced 
chiefly  at  Athens.     Later  on  perspective  began  to  be  used,  and  vase 


t,S  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

painting  as  a  distinct  art  was  influenced  unfavorably  by  fresco  paint- 
ing. (5)  White-Ground  Ware  (5th  century):  The  ground  of  the 
ware  is  covered  with  a  layer  of  white  and  figures  are  drawn  upon  it 
as  in  fresco  work.  It  is  the  freest  of  all  vase  painting.  Red,  brown, 
yellow,  blue  are  used  to  fill  in  the  outlines.  Made  chiefly  at  Athens. 
After  Alexander,  vase  painting  seems  to  have  shared  the  fate  of  wall 
and  panel  painting.  There  was  a  striving  for  effect,  with  ornateness 
and  extravagance,  and  finally  the  art  passed  out  entirely. 

There  was  an  establishment  founded  in  Southern  Italy  which 
imitated  the  Greek  and  produced  the  Apulian  ware,  but  the  Romans 
gave  little  encouragement  to  vase  painting,  and  about  65  B.C.  it  dis- 
appeared. Almost  all  the  museums  of  the  world  have  collections  of 
Greek  vases.  The  London,  Berlin,  Paris,  Athens,  New  York  and  Boston 
collections  are  perhaps  as  complete  as  any. 

EXTANT  REMAINS:  There  are  few  wall  or  panel  pictures  of 
Greek  times  in  existence.  Four  slabs  of  stone  in  the  Naples  Museum, 
with  red  outline  drawings  of  Theseus,  Silenus,  and  some  figures  with 
masks,  are  probably  Greek  work  from  which  the  color  has  scaled. 
A  number  of  Roman  copies  of  Greek  frescos  and  mosaics  are  in  the 
Vatican,  Capitoline,  and  Naples  Museums.  All  these  pieces  show 
an  imitation  of  late  Hellenistic  art  —  not  the  best  period  of  Greek 
development. 

ETRUSCAN  AND   ROMAN   PAINTING 

Books  Recommended:  See  Bibliography  of  Greek  Paint- 
ing and  also  Boissier,  Rome  and  Pompeii;  Dennis,  Cities  and 
Cemeteries  of  Etruria;  Graul,  Die  Portratgem'dlde  aus  den  Grab- 
stdtten  des  Faiyum;  Helbig,  Untersuchungen  ilber  die  campan- 
ische  Wandmalerei;  Martha,  U  Archeologie  etr  usque  et  romaine; 
Mau,  Pompeii:  its  Life  and  Art;  Waldstein  and  Shoobridge, 
Herculaneum,  Past,  Present,  and  Future;  Walters,  Art  of  the 
Romans;  Wickhoff,  Roman  Art. 

ETRUSCAN  PAINTING:  Painting  in  Etruria  has  not  a 
great  deal  of  interest  for  us  just  here.     It  was  largely  decorative  | 

(  and  sepulchral  in  motive,  and  was  employed  in  the  decora- 
tion of  tombs,  and  upon  vases  and  other  objects  placed  in 
the  tombs.  It  had  a  native  way  of  expressing _|tself,  which 
at  first  was  neither  Greek  nor  Oriental,  and  yet  a  reminder  1 

taf  both,    technically  it  was  not  well  done.^    Before  500  B.C. 


GREEK  PAINTING 


39 


it  was  almost  barbaric  in  the  drawing.  After  that  date  the 
figures  were  better,  though  still  faulty.  Those  on  the  vases 
usually  show  outline  drawing  filled  in  with  dull  browns  and 
yellows.  Finally  there  was  a  mingling  of  Etruscan  with 
Greek   elements,   and   an   imitation   of   Greek    methods.     It 


FIG.    17.  —  AENEAS   WOUNDED.      FRESCO.       POMPEII. 


was  at  best  a  hybrid  art,  but  of  some  importance  from  an 
archaeological  point  of  view. 

ROMAN  PAINTING:  We  do  not  know  to  what  extent 
Roman  painting  was  beholden  to  that  of  Greece.  It  is  said 
to  have  copied  the  degenerate  Hellenistic  paintings,  but  we 
have  few  if  any  Greek  tablets  left  for  comparison.  The  sub- 
jects were  often  taken  from  Greek  story,  though  there  were 
also  Roman  historical  scenes,  genre  pieces,  and  many  portraits. 


4Q 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 


They  might  have  been  conceived  and  painted  in  a  Roman 
way.  There  was  undoubtedly  originality  in  the  Roman  work 
—  more,  perhaps,  than  has  usually  been  supposed. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  Empire  tablet  or  panel  painting 

was  rather  abandoned  in  favor  of 
~\  mural  decoration.  That  is  to  say, 
figures  or  groups  were  painted  in 
fresco  on  the  wall  and  then  sur- 
rounded by  geometrical,  floral,  or 
architectural  designs  to  give  the 
effect  of  a  panel  let  into  the  wall. 
Vitruvius  says  in  effect  that  in 
the  early  days  nature  was  followed 
in  these  wall  paintings,  but  later 
on  they  became  ornate  and  over- 
done, showing  many  unsupported 
architectural  facades  and  impos- 
sible decorative  framings.  This 
can  be  traced  in  the  Roman  and 
Pompeian  frescos.  The  walls  at 
Pompeii  show  several  different 
styles  of  decoration.  Mau  classi- 
fies them  as  follows: 

(i)  The  Incrustation  Style  in 
which  the  wall  is  divided  into 
panels  and  ornamented  with  pat- 
terns or  bands  of  color.  This  style 
comes  down  to  the  year  80  B.C. 
(2)  The  Architectural  Style 
which  comes  down  to  about  the  Christian  era.  It  was  probably 
developed  from  the  preceding  style.  Pictures  appear  in  the 
central  panels  surrounded  and  framed  by  painted  columns, 
pilasters,  cornices,  pedestals.  The  architecture  is  often  given 
with  perspective  effect  for  the  sake  of  illusion. 


FIG.  l8.  —  GRECO-ROMAN  PORTRAIT. 
FROM  FAYOUM. 


GREEK  PAINTING  41 

(3)  The  Ornate  Style  coming  down  in  time  to  about  50  a.d. 
This  style  shows  pictures  in  the  panels  and  about  them  archi- 
tectural ornament  given  not  so  much  for  purposes  of  framing 
as  for  decoration.  Illusion  was  also  an  object  here.  The 
spectator  was  supposed  to  be  looking  not  at  an  actual  wall 
painting  so  much  as  at  a  picture  of  a  wall  painting. 

(4)  The  Intricate  Style  dates  down  to  the  destruction  of 
Pompeii,  79  a.d.  This  was  a  final  development  of  the  Ornate 
Style  and  ran  into  the  fantastic  in  design,  pattern,  and  sense  of 
illusion.  There  were  panels,  balconies,  steps, 
porches,  painted  in  perspective,  with  decep- 
tive figures  in  them  or  upon  them. 

The  actual  pictures  within  the  architec- 
tural framings  varied  little  during  the 
periods  indicated.  The  earlier  ones  were 
chiefly  landscapes  with  small  figures  and 
filled  the  whole  space;  the  later  ones  filled 
the  smaller  panels  and  showed  mythological 
groups,  genre,  and  single  figures.  The  sub- 
jects were  often  copies  of  Greek  works  and      fig.  ig.— amphora, 

.       .    .  ..  •    1         1  •  1  LOWER   ITALY. 

varied  m  excellence  with  the  painter  under- 
taking them.  The  genre  was  more  strictly  local  and  orig- 
inal. The  single  figures  were  usually  the  best  as  regards 
their  execution.  They  had  grace  of  line  and  motion  and  all 
the  truth  to  nature  that  decoration  required.  Some  of  the 
backgrounds  were  flat  tints  of  red  or  black  against  which  the 
figure  was  placed.  In  the  larger  pieces  the  composition  was 
rather  rambling  and  disjointed,  and  the  color  harsh.  In 
light-and-shade,  relief,  and  perspective  the  Roman  painters 
probably  followed  the  Greek  example  and  perhaps  improved 
upon  it. 

ROMAN  PAINTERS:  During  the  first  five  centuries  Rome 
seems  to  have  been  between  the  influences  of  Etruria  and 
Greece.     The   first   paintings   in    Rome   of   which    there   is 


42  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

record  were  done  in  the  Temple  of  Ceres  by  the  Greek  artists 
of  Lower  Italy,  Gorgasus  and  Damophilus  (fl.  493  B.C.). 
They  were  doubtless  somewhat  like  the  vase  paintings  — 
profile  work,  without  light,  shade,  or  perspective.  At  the 
time  and  after  Alexander  Greek  influence  held  swTay.  Fabius 
Pictor  (fl.  about  300  B.C.)  is  one  of  the  celebrated  names  in 
historical  painting,  and  later  on  Pacuvius,  Metrodorus,  and 
Serapion  are  mentioned.  In  the  last  century  of  the  Republic, 
Sopolis,  Dionysius,  and  Antiochus  Gabinius  excelled  in  por- 
traiture. Ancient  painting  really  ends  for  us  with  the  destruc- 
tion of  Pompeii  (79  a.d.),  though  after  that  (as  also  before  it) 
there  were  interesting  portraits  produced,  especially  those 
found  in  the  Fayoum  (Egypt).* 

EXTANT  REMAINS:  The  frescos  that  are  left  to  us  to-day  are 
for  the  most  part  the  work  of  mechanical  decorators  rather  than  cre- 
ative artists.  They  are  to  be  seen  in  Rome,  in  the  Baths  of  Titus, 
the  Vatican,  Farnesina,  Rospigliosi,  and  Barberini  Palaces,  Baths 
of  Caracalla,  Capitoline  and  Lateran  Museums,  in  the  houses  of 
excavated  Pompeii,  and  the  Naples  Museum.  Besides  these  there 
are  examples  of  Roman  fresco  and  distemper  in  the  Louvre  and  other 
European  Museums.  Examples  of  Etruscan  painting  are  to  be  seen 
in  the  Vatican,  Cortona,  the  Louvre,  the  British  Museum,  and  else- 
where. At  the  Berlin  Museum,  National  Gallery,  London,  and  Metro- 
politan Museum,  New  York,  are  examples  of  the  Fayoum  portraits 
showing  the  Greek  method  of  working  with  wax  and  color  (encaustic) 
on  wooden  panels. 

*  See  Scribncr's  Magazine,  New  Series,  vol.  v,  p.  219. 


CHAPTER   IV 
ITALIAN  PAINTING 

EARLY   CHRISTIAN   AND   MEDIEVAL   PERIOD.      3OO-1250 

Books  Recommended:  Bayet,  UArt  Byzantin;  Bennett, 
Christian  Archceology;  Bosio,  La  Roma  Sotterranea;  Crowe 
and  Cavalcaselle,  New  History  of  Painting  in  Italy  (Douglas 
Edition);  Dalton,  Byzantine  Art  and  Archceology;  De  Rossi, 
La  Roma  Sotterranea  Cristiana;  Didron,  Christian  Iconog- 
raphy; Diehl,  Manuel  de  VArt  Byzantin;  Eastlake  (Kli- 
gler's),  Handbook  of  Painting  —  The  Italian  Schools;  Frothing- 
ham,  Monuments  of  Christian  Rome;  Garrucci,  Storia  deW 
Arte  Cristiana;  Gerspach,  La  Mosaique;  KondakofT,  Histoire 
de  VArt  Byzantin;  Lafenestre,  La  Peinture  Italienne;  Lanzi, 
History  of  Painting  in  Italy;  Lecoy  de  la  Marche,  Les  Manu- 
scripts et  la  Miniature;  Lethaby,  Mediceval  Art;  Lindsay, 
Sketches  of  the  History  of  Christian  Art;  Lowrie,  Monuments 
of  the  Early  Church;  Martigny,  Dictionnaire  des  Antiques 
Chretiennes;  Perate,  L 'Archeologie  Chretienne;  Reber,  History 
of  Mediceval  Art;  Richter  and  Taylor,  Golden  Age  of  Classical 
Christian  Art;  Rio,  Poetry  of  Christian  Art;  Smith  and  Cheet- 
ham,  Dictionary  of  Christian  Antiquities;  Springer-Ricci, 
Manuale  di  Storia  deW  Arte;  Strzygowski,  Orient  oder  Rom; 
Venturi,  Storia  deW  Arte  Italiana;  Wilpert,  Die  Katacomben- 
gemalde. 

RISE  OF  CHRISTIANITY:  Out  of  the  decaying  civilization 
of  Rome  sprang  into  life  that  remarkable  growth  known  as 
Christianity.  It  was  not  at  first  welcomed  by  the  Romans. 
It  was  scoffed  at,  scourged,  persecuted,  and,  at  one  time, 
nearly  exterminated.     But  its  vitality  was  stronger  than  that 


44  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

of  its  persecutor,  and  when  Rome  declined,  Christianity  arose 
and  utilized  the  things  that  were  Roman  while  striving  to 
live  for  ideas  that  were  Christian. 

There  was  no  revolt,  no  sudden  change.  The  Christian 
idea  made  haste  slowly,  and  at  the  start  it  was  weighed  down 
with  many  paganisms.  The  Christians  themselves,  in  all  save 
religious  faith,  were  Romans,  and  inherited  Roman  tastes, 
manners,  and  methods.  But  the  Roman  world,  with  all  its 
classicism  and  learning,  was  dying.  The  decline  socially 
and  intellectually  was  with  the  Christians  as  well  as  the 
Romans.  There  was  good  reason  for  it.  The  times  were 
out  of  joint,  and  almost  everything  was  disorganized,  worn 
out,  decadent.  The  military  life  of  the  Empire  was  destined 
to  give  way  to  the  monastic  and  feudal  life  of  the  Church. 
Quarrels  and  wars  between  the  powers  kept  life  at  fever  heat. 
In  the  fifth  century  came  the  inpouring  of  the  Goths  and 
Huns,  and  with  them  the  sacking  and  plunder  of  the  land. 
Misery  and  squalor,  with  intellectual  blackness,  succeeded. 
Art,  science,  literature,  and  learning  degenerated  to  mere 
shadows  of  their  former  selves,  and  a  semi-barbarism  reigned 
for  five  centuries.  During  all  this  dark  period  Christian 
painting  struggled  on  in  a  feeble  way,  seeking  to  express  itself. 
It  started  Roman  in  form,  method,  and  even,  at  times,  in 
subject;  it  ended  Christian,  but  not  without  a  long  period 
of  gradual  transition,  during  which  it  was  influenced  from 
many  sources  and  underwent  many  changes. 

ART  MOTIVES:  As  in  the  ancient  world,  tfiere  were  two 
principal  motives  for  painting  in  early  Christian  times  — 
religion  and  decoration.  Religion  was  the  chief  motive,  but 
Christianity  was  a  very  different  religion  from  that  of  the 
Greeks  and  Romans.  The  Hellenistic  faith  was  a  worship  of 
nature,  a  glorification  of  humanity,  an  exaltation  of  physical 
and  moral  perfections.  It  dealt  with  the  material  and  the 
tangible,  and  Greek  art  appealed  directly  to  the  sensuous  and 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


45 


earthly  nature  of  mankind.  The  Hebraic  faith  or  Christianity 
was  just  the  opposite  of  this.  It  decried  the  human  and  the 
natural.  It  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  beauty  of 
this  earth.     Its  hopes  were  centred  upon  the  life  hereafter. 


FIG.    20.  —  CHAMBER   IN   CATACOMBS,    SHOWING   WALL  DECORATION. 

The  teaching  of  Christ  was  the  humility  and  the  abasement 
of  the  human  in  favor  of  the  spiritual  and  the  divine.  Where 
Hellenism  appealed  to  the  senses,  Hebraism  appealed  to  the 
spirit.  In  Early  Christian  art  the  fine  athletic  figure,  or, 
for  that  matter,  any  figure,  was  an  abomination.  The  early 
Church  fathers  opposed  it.  It  was  forbidden  by  the  Mosaic 
decalogue  and  savored  of  idolatry. 


46  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

But  what  should  take  its  place  in  art?  How  could  the 
new  Christian  ideas  be  expressed  without  form?  Symbolism 
came  in  and  held  for  a  time  but  it  was  insufficient.  A  party  in 
the  Church  rose  up  in 'favor  of  direct  representation.  Art 
should  be  used  as  an  engine  of  the  Church  to  teach  the  Bible  to 
those  who  could  not  read.  This  argument  held  good,  and 
notwithstanding  the  opposition  of  the  Iconoclastic  party 
painting  grew  in  favor.  It  lent  itself  to  teaching  and  came 
under  ecclesiastical  domination.  As  it  left  the  nature  of  the 
classic  world  and  loosened  its  grasp  on  things  tangible  it  be- 
came feeble  in  its  form.  While  it  grew  in  power  as  a  teacher 
it  lost  in  artistic  vigor  and  technical  ability. 

For  centuries  the  religious  motive  held  strong,  and  art  was 
the  servant  of  the  Church.  It  taught  the  Bible  truths,  but 
it  also  embellished  and  adorned  the  interiors  of  the  churches. 
All  the  frescos  and  mosaics  of  the  time  had  a  decorative 
motive  in  their  coloring  and  setting.  The  walls  of  the  Cata- 
combs with  their  symbolism  and  their  Bible  teachings  were 
painted  after  classic  models  and  were  classically  decorative; 
and  later  on  the  church  building  itself  became  a  house  of  ref- 
uge for  the  oppressed,  and  was  made  attractive  not  only  in 
its  lines  and  proportions  but  in  its  rich-hued  mosaics  with 
golden  backgrounds.  Hence  the  two  motives  of  the  early 
work  —  religious  teaching  and  decoration. 

TYPES  AND  TECHNICAL  METHODS:  There  was  no  dis- 
tinctly Judaic  or  Christian  type  used  in  the  very  early  art. 
The  painters  took  their  models  directly  from  the  old  Roman 
frescos  and  marbles.  It  was  the  classic  figure  with  the  classic 
costume,  and  those  who  produced  the  painting  of  the  early 
period  were  the  degenerate  painters  of  the  classic  world. 
The  figure  almost  at  the  start  was  rather  short,  coarse  in  the 
joints,  hands,  and  feet,  and  almost  expressionless  in  the  face. 
Christian  life  at  that  time  was  passion-wrung,  but  the  faces 
in  art  do  not  show  it,  for  the  reason  that  the  old  Roman  frescos 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


47 


were  the  painter's  model,  not  the  people  of  the  Christian 
community  about  him.     There  was  nothing  like  a  realistic 
presentation  of  the  time  and  the  people.    The  classic  type 
alone  was  given. 
This  type  as  regards  its  drawing  was  not  so  well  done  as 


FIG.  21. —  CHRIST  AS  GOOD  SHEPHERD.   S.  GENEROSA. 
SEVENTH  CENTURY  (?). 

the  figure  shown  in  the  Roman  and  Pompeian  frescos.  There 
was  a  mechanism  about  its  production,  a  copying  by  unskilled 
hands,  a  negligence  or  an  ignorance  of  form  that  showed 
everywhere.  The  coloring,  again,  was  a  conventional  scheme 
of  flat  tints  in  reddish-browns  and  bluish-greens,  with  heavy 
outline   bands   of   brown.     There   was   little   perspective   or 


48  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

background,  and  the  figures  in  panels  were  separated  by  vines, 
leaves,  or  other  ornamental  pattern.  Some  relief  was  given 
to  the  figure  by  the  brown  outlines.  Light-and-shade  was 
not  well  rendered,  and  composition  was  formal.  The  great 
part  of  this  early  work  was  done  in  fresco.  Other  forms  of 
art  showed  in  the  gilded  glasses,  in  pottery,  and,  later,  in  the 
mosaics. 

EARLY  CHRISTIAN  PAINTING:  The  earliest  Christian 
painting  of  importance  appeared  on  the  walls  of  the  Cata- 
combs in  Rome.  The  walls  were  decorated  with  panels  and 
within  the  panels  were  representations  of  trailing  vines,  leaves, 
fruits,  flowers,  with  birds  and  little  genii  or  cupids.  It  was 
painting  similar  to  the  Roman  work,  and  had  no  Christian 
significance  though  in  a  Christian  place.  Sometime  after, 
however,  the  desire  to  express  something  of  the  faith  began 
to  show  itself  in  a  symbolic  way.  The  cups  and  the  glasses 
became  marked  with  the  fish,  because  the  Greek  spelling  of 
the  word  "icthus"  gave  the  initials  of  the  Christian  confes- 
sion of  faith.  The  paintings  of  the  shepherd  bearing  a  sheep 
symbolized  Christ  and  his  flock;  the  anchor  meant  the  Chris- 
tian hope;  the  phoenix  immortality;  the  ship  the  Church; 
the  cock  watchfulness,  and  so  on.  And  at  this  time  the  decora- 
tions began  to  have  a  double  meaning.  The  vine  came  to  rep- 
resent the  "I  am  the  vine"1  and  the  birds  grew  longer  wings 
and  became  doves,  symbolizing  pure  Christian  souls. 

It  has  been  said  this  form  of  art  came  about  through  fear 
of  persecution,  that  the  Christians  hid  their  ideas  in  symbols 
because  open  representation  would  be  followed  by  violence 
and  desecration.  Such  was  hardly  the  case.  The  emperors 
persecuted  the  living,  but  the  dead  and  their  sepulchres  were 
exempt  from  sacrilege  by  Roman  law.  They  probably  used 
the  symbol  because  they  feared  the  Roman  figure  and  knew 
no  other  form  to  take  its  place.  But  symbolism  did  not 
entirely  meet  the  popular  need;  it  was  impossible  to  originate 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


49 


a  new  figure;  so  the  painters  went  back  and  borrowed  the  old 
Roman  form.  Christ  appeared  as  a  beardless  youth  in  Phryg- 
ian costume,  the  Virgin  Mary  was  a  Roman  matron,  and  the 
Apostles  came  forth  as  Roman  senators  wearing  the  toga. 

Classic  story  was  also  borrowed  to  illustrate  Bible  truth. 
Hermes  carrying  the  sheep  was  the  Good  Shepherd,  Psyche 
discovering  Cupid  was  the  curiosity  of  Eve,  Ulysses  closing 
his  ears  to  the  Sirens  was  the  Christian  resisting  the  tempter. 
The  pagan  Orpheus  charming  the  animals  of  the  wood  was 


FIG.    22. —  CHRIST   AND   SAINTS.      S.    GENEROSA.      SEVENTH   CENTURY   (?). 

finally  adoped  as  a  forerunner,  a  symbol,  or  perhaps  an  ideal 
likeness  of  Christ.  Then  followed  more  direct  representation 
in  classic  form  and  manner,  the  Old  Testament  prefiguring 
and  emphasizing  the  New.  Jonah  appeared  cast  into  the  sea 
and  cast  by  the  whale  on  dry  land  again  as  a  symbol  of  the 
New  Testament  resurrection,  and  also  as  a  representation  of 
the  actual  occurrence.  Moses  striking  the  rock  symbolized 
life  eternal,  and  David  slaying  Goliath  was  Christ  victorious. 

The  chronology  of  the  Catacombs  painting  is  very  much 
mixed,  but  it  is  quite  certain  there  was  degeneracy  from  the 
start  in  proportion  as  painting  was  removed  from  the  knowl- 


5o  HISTORY  OF    PAINTING 

edge  of  the  ancient  world.  The  cause  was  neglect  of  form, 
neglect  of  art  as  art,  mechanical  copying  instead  of  nature 
study,  and  finally,  the  predominance  of  the  religious  idea  over 
the  forms  of  nature.  With  Constantine  Christianity  was 
recognized  as  a  national  religion.  Christian  art  came  out  of 
the  Catacombs  and  began  to  show  itself  in  church  decoration. 
But  notwithstanding  it  was  now  free  from  restraint  it  did  not 
improve.  Church  traditions  prevailed,  sentiment  bordered 
upon  sentimentality,  and  the  technique  of  painting  passed 
from  bad  to  worse. 

LATER  CHRISTIAN  ART:  During  the  latter  part  of  the 
fifth  century  the  figure  grew  heavy  and  stiff.  A  new  type 
began  to  show  itself.  The  Roman  toga  was  exchanged  for 
the  long  liturgical  garment  which  hid  the  proportions  of  the 
body,  the  lines  grew  dark  and  hard,  a  golden  nimbus  ap- 
peared about  the  head,  and  the  patriarchal  in  appearance 
came  into  art.  The  youthful  Orphic  face  of  Christ  was 
largely  superseded  by  a  solemn  visage,  with  large  round 
eyes,  saint-like  beard,  and  melancholy  air.  The  classic 
qualities  were  fast  failing. 

The  decline  continued  during  the  sixth  and  seventh  cen- 
turies, owing  somewhat  perhaps  to  the  influence  of  Byzantine 
art  and  the  introduction  into  Italy  of  Eastern  types  and  ele- 
ments. In  the  eighth  century  the  Iconoclastic  controversy* 
broke  out  again  in  fury  with  the  edict  of  Leo  the  Isaurian. 
This  controversy  was  a  renewal  of  the  old  quarrel  in  the  Church 
about  the  use  of  pictures  and  images.  Some  wished  them  for 
instruction  in  the  Word;  others  decried  them  as  leading  to 
idolatry.  It  was  a  long  quarrel,  and  a  deadly  one  for  art. 
When  it  ended,  the  artists  were  ordered  to  follow  the  tradi- 
tions, not  to  make  any  new  creations,  and  not  to  model  any 
figure  in  the  round.  The  nature  element  in  art  was  quite 
dead  at  that  time,  and  the  order  resulted  only  in  diverting  the 
course  of   painting  toward   the   unrestricted  miniatures  and 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


51 


manuscripts.  The  native  Italian  art  was  crushed  for  a  time 
by  this  new  ecclesiastical  burden.  It  did  not  entirely  dis- 
appear, but  it  gave  way  to  the  stronger,  though  equally  re- 
stricted art  that  had  been  encroaching  upon  it  for  a  long 
time  —  the  art  of  the  Eastern  Empire. 


FIG.    23.  —  MADONNA   AND    CHILD.      BYZANTINE 
STYLE.      UFFIZI,    FLORENCE. 

BYZANTINE  PAINTING:  Constantinople  (Byzantium)  was 
rebuilt  and  rechristened  by  Constantine,  a  Christian  emperor, 
in  the  year  328  a.d.  It  became  a  stronghold  of  Christian 
traditions,  manners,  customs,  art.  But  it  was  not  quite  the 
same  civilization  as  that  of  Rome  and  the  West.  It  was 
bordered  on  the  south  and  east  by  oriental  influences,  and 
much  of  Eastern  thought,  method,  and  glamour  found  its 
way  into  the  Christian  community.     The  artists  fought  this 


52  HISTORY   OF    PAINTING 

influence,  stickling  a  long  time  for  the  severer  classicism  of 
ancient  Greece.  For  when  Rome  fell  the  traditions  of  the 
Old  World  centred  around  Constantinople.  But  classic  form 
was  ever  being  encroached  upon  by  oriental  richness  of 
material  and  color.  The  struggle  was  a  long  but  hopeless  one. 
As  in  Italy,  form  failed  century  by  century.  When,  in  the 
eighth  century,  the  Iconoclastic  controversy  cut  away  the 
little  Greek  existing  in  it,  the  oriental  ornament  was  about 
all  that  remained. 

There  was  no  chance  for  painting  to  rise  under  the  prevail- 
ing conditions.  Free  artistic  creation  was  denied  the  artist. 
An  advocate  of  painting  at  the  Second  Nicene  Council 
declared  that:  "It  is  not  the  invention  of  the  painter  that 
creates  the  picture,  but  an  inviolable  law  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  It  is  not  the  painter  but  the  holy  fathers  who 
have  to  invent  and  dictate.  To  them  manifestly  belongs  the 
composition,  to  the  painter  only  the  execution."  Painting 
was  in  a  strait-jacket.  It  had  to  follow  precedent  and  copy 
what  had  gone  before  in  old  Byzantine  patterns.  Both  in 
Italy  and  in  the  East  the  creative  artist  had  passed  away  in 
favor  of  the  skilled  artisan  —  the  repeater  of  time-honored 
forms  or  colors.  The  workmanship  was  good  for  the  time, 
and  the  coloring  and  ornamental  borders  made  a  rich  setting, 
but  the  real  life  of  art  had  gone.  A  long  period  of  heavy, 
morose,  almost  formless  art,  eloquent  of  mediaeval  darkness 
and  ignorance,  followed.  The  figure  became  decrepit,  par- 
alytic. It  was  shrouded  in  a  sack-like  garment,  had  no  feet 
at  times,  and  instead  of  standing  on  the  ground  hung  in 
the  air.  Facial  expression  ran  to  contorted  features,  holiness 
became  moroseness,  and  sadness  sulkiness.  Add  to  this  the 
gold  ground  (a  Persian  inheritance),  the  gilded  high  lights, 
the  absence  of  perspective,  and  the  composing  of  groups  so 
that  the  figures  looked  piled  one  upon  another  instead  of 
receding,  and  we  have  the  style  of  painting  that  prevailed 


ITALIAN  PAINTING  53 

(though  not  exclusively)  in  Italy  from  the  sixth  or  seventh 
to  the  thirteenth  century.  Nothing  of  a  technical  nature  was 
in  its  favor  except  the  rich  coloring,  the  gold  embossing,  and 
the  mechanical  adroitness  of  the  workmanship. 


FIG.    24.  —  BYZANTINE  CRUCIFIX.      THIRTEENTH   CENTURY.      PISTOIA. 

It  is  strange  that  such  an  art  should  be  adopted  by  foreign 
nations,  and  yet  it  was.  Its  bloody  crucifixions  and  morbid 
madonnas  were  well  fitted  to  the  dark  view  of  life  held  during 
the  Middle  Ages,  and  its  influence  was  wide-spread  and  of 
long  duration.  It  affected  French  and  German  art,  it  ruled 
at  the  North,  and  in  the  East  it  lives  feebly  even  to  this  day. 
That  it  strongly  affected  Italy  is  a  very  apparent  fact.  Just 
when  it  first  began  to  show  its  influence  there  is  matter  of 


54  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

dispute.  It  probably  gained  a  foothold  at  Ravenna  in  the 
fifth  century,  during  the  time  of  Theodoric  and  before  that 
province  became  a  part  of  the  empire  of  Justinian.  It  also 
permeated  Rome,  Sicily,  and  Naples  at  the  south,  and  Venice 
at  the  north.  With  the  decline  of  the  early  Christian  art  of 
Italy  this  richer,  and  in  many  ways  more  acceptable,  Byzantine 
art  came  in,  and,  with  Italian  modifications,  usurped  the  field. 
It  did  not  literally  crush  out  the  native  Italian  art,  but  prac- 
tically it  dominated  it,  or  held  it  in  check,  from  the  ninth  to 
the  twelfth  century.  Even  at  that  late  date  there  was  some 
revival  of  Byzantine  mosaic  work  though  painting  on  panel 
and  wall  was  beginning  to  take  new  form,  and  signs  of  the 
Gothic  awakening  were  visible. 

EARLY  CHRISTIAN  AND  BYZANTINE  REMAINS :  The  best 
examples  of  Early  Christian  painting  are  still  to  be  seen  in  the  Cata- 
combs at  Rome.  Mosaics  in  the  early  churches  of  Rome,  Ravenna, 
Naples,  Venice,  Constantinople.  Sculptures,  ivories,  and  glasses 
in  the  Lateran,  Ravenna,  and  Vatican  museums.  Illuminations  in 
the  Vatican  and  Paris  libraries.  Almost  all  the  museums  of  Europe, 
those  of  the  Vatican  and  Naples  particularly,  have  some  examples  of 
Byzantine  work.  The  older  altar-pieces  of  the  early  Italian  churches 
date  back  to  the  mediaeval  period  and  show  Byzantine  influence. 
The  altar-pieces  of  the  Greek  and  Russian  churches  show  the  same 
influence  even  in  modern  work. 


) 


CHAPTER   V 
ITALIAN  PAINTING 

GOTHIC   PERIOD.       1250-1400 

Books  Recommended:  As  before,  Crowe  and  Cavalca- 
selle,  Eastlake,  Lafenestre,  Lanzi,  Lindsay,  Reber;  also 
Berenson,  A  Sienese  Painter  (Sassetta)  of  the  Franciscan  Legend; 
Central  Italian  Painters  of  the  Renaissance;  Drawings  of  Floren- 
tine Painters;  Florentine  Painters  of  the  Renaissance;  North 
Italian  Painters  of  the  Renaissance;  Study  and  Criticism  of 
Italian  Art;  Venetian  Painters  of  the  Renaissance;  Brown  and 
Rankin,  Short  History  of  Italian  Painting;  Burckhardt,  Der 
Cicerone,  Ed.  Bode;  Catalogue  of  Pictures  in  the  National  Gal- 
lery, London  (unabridged  edition);  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle, 
History  of  Painting  in  North  Italy  (Borenius  Edition);  Doug- 
las, Fra  Angelico;  Forster,  Leben  und  Werke  des  Fra  Angelico; 
Frizzoni,  Arte  Italiana  del  Renascimento ;  Morelli,  Italian 
Masters,  Critical  Studies  in  their  Works;  Italian  Masters  in 
German  Galleries;  Perkins,  Giotto;  Ricci,  Art  in  Northern 
Italy;  Rumohr,  Italienische  Forschungen;  Schubring,  Alti- 
chiero  und  Seine  Schule;  Selincourt,  Giotto;  Siren,  Giottino; 
Giotto;  Don  Lorenzo  Monaco;  Stillman,  Old  Italian  Masters; 
Thode,  Giotto;  Vasari,  Lives  of  the  Most  Eminent  Painters; 
Weigelt,  Duccio  di  Buoninsegna. 

SIGNS  OF  THE  AWAKENING:  It  would  seem  at  first  as 
though  nothing  but  self-destruction  could  come  to  that  strug- 
gling, praying,  warring  people  that  kept  Italy  in  a  ferment 
during  the  Mediaeval  Period.  The  people  were  ignorant,  the 
rulers  treacherous,  the  passions  strong,  and  yet  out  of  the 
Dark  Ages  came  light.     In  the  thirteenth  century  the  light 


56  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

grew  brighter,  but  the  internal  dissensions  did  not  cease. 
The  Hohenstaufen  power  was  broken,  the  imperial  rule  in 
Italy  was  crushed.  Pope  and  emperor  no  longer  were  at  war, 
but  the  cries  of  "Guelf "  and  "Ghibelline"  had  not  died  out. 

Throughout  the  entire  Romanesque  and  Gothic  periods 
(1000-1400)  Italy  was  torn  by  political  wars,  though  the  free 
cities,  through  their  leagues  of  protection  and  their  commerce, 
were  prosperous.  A  commercial  rivalry  sprang  up  among 
the  cities.  Trade  with  the  East,  manufactures,  banking,  all 
flourished;  and  even  the  philosophies,  with  law,  science,  and 
literature,  began  to  be  studied.  The  spirit  of  learning  showed 
itself  in  the  founding  of  schools  and  universities.  There  was 
a  marked  interest  not  only  in  classic  literature  but  classic  art. 
The  sculptors  and  the  painters  at  this  time,  though  still  in 
bondage  to  the  old  Byzantine  tradition,  gave  plenty  of  evi- 
dence that  they  had  been  studying  the  Roman  marbles. 
Again  art  showed  now  most  decisively  that  the  artists  were 
at  times  looking  away  from  the  old  models  at  the  new  model 
of  nature.  Scraps  and  studies  of  nature  in  figure,  landscape, 
and  genre  were  apparent  everywhere  in  the  pictures.  It  was 
the  age  of  looking  outward  though  this  must  not  be  taken  to 
mean  that  there  was  no  longer  any  looking  inward.  Religion, 
emotion,  tenderness  were  never  more  in  evidence  than  just 
at  this  time.  Faith,  inquiry,  nature  study,  archaeological 
study  went  along  together.  Dante,  Petrarch,  and  Boccaccio, 
reflecting  respectively  religion,  classic  learning,  and  the  in- 
clination toward  nature,  lived  at  this  time  and  are  exemplars 
in  their  works  of  the  trends  of  Gothic  thought. 

SUBJECTS  AND  METHODS :  In  painting,  though  there  were 
some  portraits  and  allegorical  scenes  produced  during  the 
Gothic  period,  the  chief  theme  was  Bible  story.  The  Church 
was  the  patron,  and  art  was  only  the  servant,  as  it  had  been 
from  the  beginning.  It  was  the  instructor  and  consoler  of 
the  faithful,  a  means  whereby  the  Church  made  converts, 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


57 


and  an  adornment  of  wall  and  altar.  It  had  not  entirely 
escaped  from  symbolism.  It  was  still  the  portrayal  of  things 
for  what  they  meant,  rather  than  for  what  they  looked. 
There  was  no  such  thing  as  art  for  art's  sake  in  this  period. 
T7  It  was  art  for  religion's  sake. 

The  demand  for  painting  increased,  and  its  subjects  multi- 
plied with  the  establishment  at  this  time  of  the  two  powerful 


FIG.    25.  —  GIOTTO.      ST.    JOHN  AT   PATMOS.      S.    CROCK,    FLORENCE. 

orders  of  Dominican  and  Franciscan  monks.  The  first  exacted 
from  the  painters  more  learned  and  instructive  work;  the 
second  wished  for  the  crucifixions,  the  martyrdoms,  the 
dramatic  deaths,  wherewith  to  move  people  by  emotional 
appeal.  The  influence  of  the  teachings  of  St.  Francis  (died 
1226)  and  the  Franciscan  legends  was  enormous.  The  tender- 
ness toward  saint  and  human,  the  emotional  love  of  nature, 
the  profound  religious  belief  shown  in  the  pictures  of  the  Gothic 
period  may  be  traced  almost  directly  to  the  Franciscan  cult. 


58  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

Especially  is  this  true  of  the  School  of  Siena  as  we  shall  pres- 
ently see. 

To  offset  this  the  ultra-religious  character  of  painting  was 
encroached  upon  somewhat  by  the  growth  of  the  painters' 
guilds,  and  art  production  largely  passing  into  the  hands  of 
^  laymen.  In  consequence  painting  produced  many  themes  and 
gave  vent  to  many  thoughts  but  at  first  only  after  the  Byzan- 
tine style.  The  painter  was  more  of  a  workman  than  an 
artist.  The  Church  had  more  use  for  his  fingers  than  for 
his  creative  ability.  It  was  still  his  business  to  transcribe 
what  had  gone  before.  This  he  did,  but  not  without  signs 
here  and  there  of  uneasiness  and  discontent  with  the  pattern. 
^  There  was  an  inclination  toward  something  truer  to  nature, 
but,  at  the  beginning,  no  great  realization  of  it.  The  study  of 
nature  came  in  slowly,  and  painting  was  not  positive  or  in- 
dividual in  statement  until  the  time  of  Giotto. 

The  best  paintings  during  the  Gothic  period  were  executed 
upon  the  walls  of  the  churches  in  fresco.  The  prepared  color 
was  laid  on  wet  plaster,  and  allowed  to  soak  in.  The  small 
altar  and  panel  pictures,  representing  the  Madonna,  Christ, 
the  Apostles,  and  other  scenes,  were  painted  in  distemper, 
the  gold  ground  and  many  Byzantine  features  being  retained 
by  most  of  the  painters,  though  discarded  by  some  few.  The 
workmanship  was  generally  excellent  no  matter  what  the 
utterance  or  what  its  form.  The  tradition  of  the  craft  had 
been  established  before  the  discovery  of  nature  or  the  antique 
and  the  newly-established  guilds  merely  perpetuated  it, 
carried  it  on.  Knowledge,  skill,  integrity  in  the  work,  were 
qualities  handed  down  from  father  to  son,  and  these  were  the 
solid  bases  upon  which  Italian  art  afterward  rested  during 
the  flowering  period  of  the  Renaissance. 

CHANGES  IN  THE  TYPE,  ETC. :  The  advance  of  Italian 
art  in  the  Gothic  age  was  at  first  an  advance  through  the 
development  of  the  imposed  Byzantine  pattern.     It  was  not 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


59 


a  revolt  or  a  starting  out  anew  on  a  wholly  original  path. 
When  people  began  to  stir  intellectually  the  artists  found  that 
the  old  Byzantine  model  did  not  look  like  nature.  They 
began,  not  by  rejecting  it,  but  by  improving  it,  giving  it  slight 
movements  here  and  there,  turning  the  head,  throwing  out  a 
hand,  or  shifting  the  folds  of  drapery.     The  Eastern  type  was 


FIG.    26.  —  ANDREA   DA   FIRENZE  (?).      RESURRECTION.      S.   M.   NOVELLA,   FLORENCE. 

still  seen  in  the  long  pathetic  face,  oblique  eyes,  stiff  robes, 
thin  fingers,  and  absence  of  feet;  but  the  painters  now  began 
to  nipdify  and  enliven  it.  More  realistic  Italian  faces  were*-- 
introduced,  architectural  and  landscape  backgrounds  en- 
croached upon  the  Byzantine  gold  grounds,  even  portraiture 
was  taken  up. 

This  looks  very  much  like  realism,  but  we  must  not  lay 
too  much  stress  upon  it.  The  painters  were  taking  notes  of 
natural  appearances.     This  showed  in  features  like  the  hands, 


60  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

feet,  and  drapery;  but  the  anatomy  of  the  body  had  not  yet 
been  studied,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  their  study 
of  the  face  was  more  than  casual,  nor  their  portraits  more 
than  records  from  memory. 

No  one  painter  can  be  said  to  have  begun  this  movement. 
The  whole  artistic  region  of  Italy  was  at  that  time  ready  for 
the  advance.  That  all  the  painters  moved  at  about  the  same 
pace,  and  continued  to  move  at  that  pace  down  to  the  fifteenth 
century,  that  they  all  based  themselves  largely  upon  Byzantine 
teaching,  and  that  they  all  had  a  similar  style  of  working  is 
proved  by  the  great  difficulty  in  attributing  their  existing 
pictures  to  certain  masters,  or  even  certain  schools.  There 
are  plenty  of  pictures  in  Italy  to-day  that  might  be  attributed 
to  either  Florence  or  Siena,  —  to  Duccio  or  Cimabue  or  Caval- 
lini  or  to  some  other  master;  because  though  each  master  and 
each  school  had  slight  peculiarities,  yet  they  all  had  a  common 
origin  in  the  art  traditions  of  the  time.  As  stated  above 
the  positively  personal  way  of  working  did  not  come  in  un- 
til later  with  men  like  Giotto,  Lorenzetti,  and  Simone  Martini. 

There  are  names  of  painters  appearing  at  this  time  but 
they  are  hardly  more  than  names.  Such  works  as  we  possess 
of  Margaritone  of  Arezzo,  Giunto  of  Pisa,  Guido  of  Siena  show 
little  more  than  exceptional  good  workmanship  after  the  old 
methods  with  now  and  then  a  casual  utterance  about  some 
detail  of  nature.  The  case  of  Cavallini  (il.  c.  12 73-1 285),  a 
Roman  painter,  is  somewhat  different.  Though  we  know  very 
little  about  him  that  little  suggests  that  he  was  perhaps  in- 
fluenced by  Roman  as  well  as  Byzantine  models.  He  also 
was  one  of  the  first  to  make  unmistakable  studies  of  nature. 
He  stood  quite  alone  and  left  no  -school  buf  he  certainly  gave 
art  an  impulse  not  only  toward  nature  but  toward  the  monu- 
mental in  style.  There  were  painters  of  name  though  of  small 
note  in  all  the  large  cities  of  Italy  at  this  time  but  the  move- 
ments of  the  time  finally  centred  in  Florence  and  Siena  — 


ITALIAN  PAINTING  61 

the  first  city,  even  at  this  early  date,  encouraging  innovation, 
learning,  new  methods,  while  the  second  city  developed  the 
decorative  traditions  of  the  craft  and  held  fast  to  sentiment, 
tenderness,  and  feeling. 

FLORENTINE  SCHOOL:  Cimabue  (i240?-i30i?)  seems 
a  notable  instance  in  early  times  of  a  Byzantine-educated 
painter  who  improved  upon  the  traditions.  He  has  been 
called  the  father  of  Italian  painting,  but  Italian  painting  had 
no  father.  Cimabue  was  simply  a  man  of  more  originality 
and  ability  than  his  contemporaries,  and  departed  further 
from  the  art  teachings  of  the  time  without  decidedly  opposing 
them.  He  retained  the  Byzantine  pattern,  but  loosened  the 
lines  of  drapery  somewhat,  turned  the  head  to  one  side,  infused 
the  figure  with  a  little  appearance  of  life.  His  contemporaries 
elsewhere  in  Italy  were  doing  the  same  thing,  and  none  of 
them  was  much  more  than  a  link  in  the  progressive  chain. 

Cimabue's  pupil,  Giotto  (i 276-1336),  was  a  great  improve- 
ment on  all  his  predecessors  because  he  was  a  man  of  extraor- 
dinary genius.  He  would  have  been  great  in  any  time,  and 
yet  he  was  not  great  enough  to  throw  off  wholly  the  Byzantine 
traditions.  He  tried  to  do  it.  He  studied  nature  in  a  general 
way,  changed  the  type  of  face  somewhat  by  making  the  jaw 
squarer,  and  gave  it  expression  and  nobility.  To  the  figure 
he  gave  more  motion,  dramatic  gesture,  life.  The  drapery 
was  cast  in  broader,  simpler  masses,  with  some  regard  for  line, 
and  the  form  and  movement  of  the  body  were  somewhat 
emphasized  through  it.  In  methods  Giotto  was  more  learned 
and  original  than  his  contemporaries;  his  subjects  were  from 
the  common  stock  of  religious  story  but  with  his  imaginative 
force  and  invention  he  gave  them  new  meaning.  Bound 
as  he  was  by  the  conventionalities  of  his  time  he  could  still 
create  a  work  of  nobility  and  power.  He  came  too  early  for 
the  highest  achievement  in  painting.  He  had  genius,  feeling, 
fancy,  almost  everything  except  absolute  knowledge  of  the 


fe 


HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 


laws  of  nature  and  art.  His  art  was  the  best  of  its  time,  and 
is  really  great  art  for  any  time.  None  of  his  immediate  fol- 
lowers and  pupils  could  reach  up  to  it.  He  set  the  pace  and 
his  influence  was  wide-spread  for  a  century  but  there  was 
little  advance  until  the  time  of  the  Renaissance. 

Taddeo  Gaddi  (1300?- 
1366?),  one  of  Giotto's 
pupils,  was  a  painter  of 
much  feeling,  but  lacked 
in  the  large  elements  of 
construction  and  in  the 
dramatic  force  of  his 
master.  His  nature  study 
is  apparent  but  rather 
trivial  or  inconsequen- 
tial. Agnolo  Gaddi 
(i33d?-i396?),    Antonio 


Veneziano  (1312?- 
1388?),  Giovanni  da  Mi- 
lano  (rl.  1350),  Andrea 
da  Firenze  (c.  1377), 
Bernardo  Daddi  (1299-?) 
were  all  followers  of  the 
Giotto  methods,  and 
were  so  similar  in  their 
styles  that  their  works 
are  often  confused  and 
erroneously  attributed. 
They  were  something 
more  than  graceful  re- 
citers of  the  Giottesque  formulas  and  yet  were  not  great 
geniuses.  Giottino  (i324?-i357?)  was  a  supposed  imitator  of 
Giotto,  of  whom  little  is  known.  He  is  identified  by  some 
with  Tommaso  di  Stefano.    The  work  attributed  to  him  shows 


FIG. 


27.  —  ORCAGNA,  PARADISE.   (DETAIL). 
NOVELLA,  FLORENCE. 


S.  M. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING  63 

fine  decorative  quality  but,  of  necessity,  incomplete  expres- 
sion. Orcagna  (i3oS?-i368)  gathered  up  and  united  in  him- 
self all  the  art  teachings  of  his  time.  In  working  out  problems 
of  form  and  in  delicacy  and  charm  of  expression  he  went 
beyond  his  predecessors.  He  was  a  many-sided  genius,  versed 
not  only  in  a  matter  of  natural  appearance,  but  in  color 
problems,  in  perspective,  shadows,  and  light.  His  color 
alone  gives  him  rank  for  its  luminous  and  harmonious  qual- 
ities. As  for  his  feeling  it  was  more  refined  than  Giotto's 
and  his  individuality  was  almost  as  pronounced  though 
more  delicate.  A  painter  of  much  purity  and  charm  he 
was  further  along  toward  the  Renaissance  than  any  other 
of  the  Giottesques.  He  almost  changed  the  character  of 
painting,  and  yet  did  not  live  near  enough  to  the  fifteenth 
century  to  accomplish  it  completely.  Spinello  Aretino  (1333?- 
1410?)  was  the  last  of  the  well-known  Giotto  followers.  He 
carried  out  the  teachings  of  the  school  in  technical  features, 
such  as  composition,  drawing,  and  relief  by  color  rather  than 
by  light,  combining  something  of  Sienese  decoration  with 
Florentine  robustness;  but  he  lacked  the  creative  power 
of  Giotto.  In  fact,  none  of  the  Giottesques,  save  possibly 
Orcagna,  can  be  said  to  have  improved  upon  the  master,  tak- 
ing him  as  a  wThole.  Toward  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth 
century  the  school  rather  declined  with  the  work  of  such 
indifferent  followers  as  Nicolo  di  Piero  Gerini  and  Nardo  di 
Cione. 

SIENESE  SCHOOL:  The  art  teachings  and  traditions  of 
the  past  seemed  deeper  rooted  at  Siena  than  at  Florence. 
Nor  was  there  so  much  attempt  to  shake  them  off  as  at 
Florence.  Giotto  broke  the  immobility  of  the  Byzantine 
model  by  showing  the  draped  figure  in  action.  So  also  did 
the  Sienese  with  Duccio  and  the  Lorenzetti,  but  the  rank  and 
file,  perhaps,  cared  more  for  the  expression  of  the  spiritual 
than  the  beauty  of  the  natural.     The  Florentines  were  robust, 


64 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 


resolute,  even  a  little  coarse  at  times;  the  Sienese  were  more 
refined  and  sentimental.  Their  fancy  ran  to  sweetness  of 
face  rather  than  to  bodily  vigor.  Again,  their  art  was  richer 
in  costume,  color,  and  detail  than  Florentine  art,  more  ornate 
in  gilding,  tooling,  brocades,  arabesques,  surfaces;  but  it  was 
also  more  finical  and  narrow  in  scope.     Still  this  general  dis- 


FIG.    28.  —  SPINELLO   ARETINO.      ST.    BENEDICT   AND   TOTILA.       S.    MINIATO,  FLORENCE. 


tinction   is   subject   to   numerous   exceptions   and   must   be 
accepted  with  caution. 

Duccio  (c.  1 282-1339),  the  real  founder  of  the  Sienese 
school,  retained  Byzantine  methods  and  adopted  the  school 
subjects,  but  he  perfected  details  of  form,  such  as  the  hands 
and  feet,  and  while  retaining  the  long  Byzantine  face,  gave  it 
a  melancholy  tenderness  of  expression.  His  line  was  not 
only  graceful  but  expressive,  even  when  not  precisely  correct ; 
his  color  was  excellent  in  body  and  breadth ;  and  his  continued 


ITALIAN  PAINTING  65 

use  of  gold  in  the  ground  and  in  the  high  lights  was  highly 
ornamental.  In  composition,  grouping,  and  a  feeling  for  space 
he  was,  at  times,  quite  up  to  his  Florentine  contemporary, 
Giotto,  while  being  more  poetic,  more  mysterious.  He  had 
not  Giotto's  dramatic  force  but  in  its  place  a  refined  senti- 
ment of  much  charm.  Simone  Martini  (i285?-i344)  changed 
the  type  considerably  by  rounding  the  form.  His  drawing 
was  not  always  true,  but  in  color  he  was  brilliant  and  in  detail 
exact  and  minute.  He  was  more  modern  than  Duccio,  using 
the  traditional  types  but  grafting  upon  them  keen  observation 
of  nature  and  giving  them  at  times  passionate  action.  Usually 
he  is  impressive  in  dignity  as  in  his  Guido  Riccio  da  Fogliano 
at  Siena.  While  retaining  the  traditional  decorative  quality 
of  the  Sienese  he  was  in  his  nature  studies  quite  abreast  of 
the  Florentines.  All  told  he  was  the  most  important  of  the 
immediate  followers  of  Duccio.  Lippo  Memmi  (?-i357?) 
was  his  pupil  and  assistant  and  Barna'  (c.  1369-1380)  with 
Traini  (c.  1350)  were  his  followers. 

The  Sienese  who  came  the  nearest  to  Giotto's  excellence 
were  the  brothers  Ambrogio  j(c.  1323-1348)  andPietro  (c.  1335- 
1348)  Lorenzetti.  They  were  probably  influenced  by  Giotto 
for  they  took  up  fresco  work  of  vast  extent,  narrative  in 
style,  with  many  figures,  balanced  composition  and  naturalistic 
effects.  It  lacked  in  compactness  and  conciseness  but  had 
invention  and  not  a  little  power  about  it.  They  greatly  im- 
proved the  traditional  type  and  in  such  figures  as  Ambrogio's 
white-robed  Peace  at  Siena  presaged  the  Renaissance.  Both 
brothers  were  men  of  marked  individuality  and  originality. 
Their  panel  pictures  also  speak  for  their  tenderness  of 
sentiment  and  their  decorative  sense. 

Bartolo  di  Maestro  Fredi  (1330-1410)  was  probably 
a  pupil  of  Lippo  Memmi  though  influenced  by  the  Loren- 
zetti; Andrea  Vanni  (1 333-1414?)  was  a  follower  of  Bartolo 
influenced  by  Simone  Martini  and  the  Lorenzetti;  and  Taddeo 


66  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

di  Bartolo  (c.  1362-142 2)  was  a  pupil  of  Bartolo.  They  all 
carried  on  the  Sienese  tradition  of  ornamental  workmanship 
—  decorative  pattern-making  in  form  and  color.  Taddeo  was 
a  man  of  much  influence  in  Siena  and  throughout  Umbria. 
It  is  possible  that  he  influenced  Sassetta  (Stef  ano  di  Giovanni) 
(1392-1450)  one  of  the  late  Sienese  but  one  of  the  purest  and 
profoundest  in  feeling,  the  most  intense  in  passion,  of  them  all. 
He  had  a  mystic  Franciscan  imagination  and  was  for  Siena 
what  Fra  Angelico  was  for  Florence  in  the  matter  of  religious 
fervor.     With  all  this  he  was  by  no  means  blind  to  nature  or 


FIG.    29.  —  SIMONE   MARTINI.    GUIDO    RICCIO   DA   FOGLIANO.     PALAZZO   PUBBLICO,    SIENA. 

the  decorative  beauty  of  art.  His  panel  pictures  have  a 
naive  charm,  a  loveliness  of  form  and  color  as  well  as  of  feeling, 
that  are  most  attractive.  He  was  the  last  of  the  ecstatic 
Sienese  though  with  him  and  after  him  came  some  painters 
of  ability  carrying  on  Sienese  traditions  far  into  the  Renais- 
sance. These  late  men  were  Domenico  di  Bartolo  (1400- 
1449?),  Lorenzo  Vecchietta  (141 2-1480),  Sano  di  Pietro 
(1406-1481),  Benvenuto  di  Giovanni  (1436-15 18?),  Matteo  di 
Giovanni  (1435-1495),  Francesco  di  Giorgio  (1439-1502), 
Neroccio  di  Landi  (1447-1500). 

TRANSITION  PAINTERS:  Several  painters,  Stamina 
(1354-  1418?),  Gentile  da  Fabriano  (1360-1427),  Fra  Angelico 
(1387-1455),  have  been  put  down  in  some  art  histories  as 
the   makers  of   the   transition   from   Gothic   to   Renaissance 


ITALIAN   PAINTING 


67 


painting.  They  hardly  deserve  the  title.  There  was  no 
transition.  The  development  went  on,  and  these  painters, 
coming  late  in  the  fourteenth  century  and  living  into  the  fif- 


FIG.   30.  —  LORENZETTI.      PEACE    (DETAIL).       PALAZZO   PUBBLICO,   SIENA. 


teenth,  simply  showed  the  changing  style,  the  advance  in  the 
study  of  nature  and  the  technique  of  art.  Stamina's  work 
we  know  very  little  about.     It  was  probably  no  such  work  as 


68  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

Masolino's    or    Masaccio's    though    possibly    foreshadowing 
that  of  Masolino. 

There  is  always  a  little  of  the  past  in  the  present,  and  both 
Gentile  and  Fra  Angelico  showed  traces  of  the  Gothic  age  in 
details  of  the  face  and  figure,  in  coloring,  in  gold  embossing, 
in  decorative  feeling  and  religious  fervor.  Gentile  had  all 
that  nicety  of  finish  and  richness  of  detail  and  color  charac- 
teristic of  the  Sienese.  Being  closer  to  the  Renaissance  than 
his  predecessors  he  was  more  of  a  nature  student.  He  was 
practically  the  first  man  to  show  the  effect  of  sunlight  in 
landscape,  the  first  one  to  put  a  gold  sun  in  the  sky.  His 
influence  in  the  matter  of  background  landscape  alone  is 
marked  for  before  1420  he  was  working  in  Venice,  became 
there  the  master  of  Jacopo  Bellini,  and  was  possibly  respon- 
sible in  large  degree  for  the  fine  landscape  backgrounds  of 
Gentile  Bellini  and  Carpaccio.  He  never,  however,  outgrew 
Gothic  methods  as  regards  the  figure,  and  really  belongs 
in  the  fourteenth  century.  This  is  true  of  Fra  Angelico^, 
Though  he  lived  far  into  the  Early  Renaissance  he  did  not 
change  his  style  and  manner  of  work  in  conformity  with  the 
work  of  others  about  him.  He  was  one  of  the  last  inheritors 
of  the  Gothic  traditions.  He  was  behind  Giotto  and  Loren- 
zetti  in  power  and  in  imagination,  and  behind  Orcagna  as  a 
painter  and  a  colorist.  He  knew  little  of  light,  shade,  per- 
spective, and  in  characterization  wras  feeble,  except  in  some 
late  work.  One  face  or  type  answered  him  for  all  classes  of 
people  —  a  sweet,  fair  face,  full  of  divine  tenderness.  His 
art  had  enough  nature  in  it  to  express  his  meanings  and  is 
at  times  charming  in  its  naive  utterances,  its  simple  arrange- 
ment, its  fine  decorative  quality,  its  pure  spirit.  He  was 
preeminently  a  devout  painter. 

EXTANT  WORKS:  Many  of  the  pictures  of  the  Gothic  period 
arc-  open  to  doubt  as  regards  their  attributions.  It  was  not  an  age  of 
pronounced   individuality  in   either   spirit   or   method's.     The  strong 


ITALIAN  PAINTING  69 

leaders  alone,  men  like  Duccio,  Giotto,  Lorenzetti,  Orcagna,  disclose 
distinct  styles  and  methods.  The  lesser  men  merely  reflect  the  art 
traditions  and  methods  of  the  time  and  are  so  much  alike  in  technique 
that  their  pictures  are  often  confused  and  difficult  to  identify.  Posi- 
tive attributions  of  the  pictures  of  the  pupils  and  followers  should 
be  accepted  with  reserve.  For  complete  lists  of  the  pictures  and  their 
present  placings  the  student  should  consult  the  small  but  indispen- 
sable books  by  Mr.  Berenson  on  the  Florentine,  Central  Italian,  North 
Italian,  and  Venetian  Painters  of  the  Renaissance  cited  at  the  head  of 
this  chapter.  Brown  and  Rankin's  Short  History  of  Italian  Painting 
also  contains  a  short  list  of  the  principal  works  of  each  painter  and 
where  they  may  be  found,  while  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle  have  exhaust- 
ive analyses  of  all  the  pictures  of  all  the  painters  in  their  large  History 
of  Painting  in  Italy.  Aside  from  these  books  any  encyclopaedia 
article,  on  any  of  the  painters  mentioned  in  this  chapter,  will  cite 
the  chief  works  of  that  painter.  Generally  speaking  the  best  work 
of  the  Sienese  and  Florentines  of  this  period  are  still  to  be  seen  in  the 
museums  and  churches  about  Siena  and  Florence. 


CHAPTER   VI 
ITALIAN  PAINTING 

EARLY   RENAISSANCE.       14OO-1500 

Books  Recommended:  As  before,  Berenson,  Brown  and 
Rankin,  Burckhardt,  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle,  Eastlake, 
Frizzoni,  Lafenestre,  Lanzi,  Morelli,  Ricci,  Rumohr,  Stillman, 
Vasari;  also  Cartwright,  Painters  of  Florence;  Crowe  and  Ca- 
valcaselle, History  of  Painting  in  North  Italy;  Cruttwell, 
Pollaiuolo;  Verrocchio;  Davies,  Ghirlandajo;  Ffoulkes  and 
Majocchi,  Vincenzo  Foppa  of  Brescia;  Gardner,  Ferrarese  School 
of  Painting;  Goffin,  Pinturricchio;  Home,  Botticelli;  Mundler, 
Essai  d'une  Analyse  critique  de  la  Notice  des  tableaux  Italic  as 
au  Louvre;  Patch,  Life  of  Masaccio;  Ricci,  Pinturricchio; 
Richter,  Italian  Art  in  National  Gallery,  London;  Ridolfi,  Le 
Meraviglie  dell'  Arte;  Rosini,  Storia  della  Pittura  I  tali  ana; 
Schnaase,  Geschichte  der  bildenden  Kilnste;  Symonds,  Renais- 
sance in  Italy;  Toesca,  Masolino  da  Panicale;  Ulmann,  Botticelli; 
Vischer,  Lucas  Signorelli  und  die  Italienische  Renaissance; 
Weisbach,  Francesco  Pesellino;  Williamson,  Francia. 

THE  ITALIAN  MIND:  There  is  no  way  of  explaining  the 
Italian  trend  toward  form  and  color  other  than  by  considering 
the  necessities  of  the  people  and  the  artistic  training  of  the 
Italian  mind.  Art  in  all  its  phases  was  not  only  an  adornment 
but  a  necessity  of  Christian  civilization.  The  Church  taught 
people  by  sculpture,  mosaic,  and  fresco  quite  as  much  as  by 
mass  and  homily.  It  was  an  object-teaching,  a  grasping  of 
ideas  by  forms  seen  in  the  mind,  not  a  presenting  of  abstract 
ideas  as  in  literature.  Printing  was  not  known.  There  were 
few  manuscripts,  and  the  majority  of  people  could  not  read. 
Ideas  came  to  them  for  centuries  through  form  and  color, 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


71 


through  picture,  procession,  and  pageant,  until  at  last  the 
Italian  mind  took  on  a  plastic  and  pictorial  character.  It 
conceived  ideas  in  symbolic  figures,  and  when  the  Renaissance 
came  and  art  took  the  lead  as  one  of  its  strongest  expressions, 
painting  was  but  the  color-thought  and  form-language  of  the 
people. 

And  these  people,  by  reason  of  their  peculiar  education, 
were,  in  the  main,  an  exacting  people,  knowing  what  was  good 


FIG.   31.  —  MASACCIO.      THE   TRIBUTE   MONEY.      CARMINE,    FLORENCE. 

and  demanding  it  from  the  artists.  Every  intelligent  Italian 
was,  in  a  way,  an  art  critic,  because  every  church  in  Italy 
was  an  art  school.  The  artists  may  have  led  the  people,  but 
the  people  spurred  on  the  artists,  and  so  the  Italian  mind  went 
on  developing  and  unfolding  until  at  last  it  produced  the  great 
art  of  the  Renaissance. 

THE  AWAKENING:  The  Italian  civilization  of  the   four- 
teenth century  was  made  up  of  many  impulses  and  inclina- 


72  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

tions,  none  of  them  at  first  very  strongly  defined.  There  was 
a  feeling  about,  a  groping  toward  the  new  light,  but  the  leaders 
stumbled  often  on  the  road.  There  was  good  reason  for  it. 
The  knowledge  of  the  old  world  lay  buried  under  the  ruins 
of  Rome.  The  Italians  had  to  learn  it  all  over  again,  almost 
without  a  precedent,  almost,  without  a  preceptor.  The  new 
world  of  science,  art,  nature,  and  life  they  had  only  recently 
discovered  and  were  just  beginning  to  explore.  This  was  a 
slow  proceeding.  But  with  the  fifteenth  century  the  horizon 
began  to  brighten.  The  Early  Renaissance  was  begun.  It 
was  not  a  revolt,  a  reaction,  or  a  starting  out  on  a  new  path. 
It  w^as  in  fact  a  development  of  the  Gothic  period ;  and  the  in- 
clinations of  the  Gothic  period  —  primarily  the  desire  for 
classic  knowledge,  and  the  study  of  nature  —  were  carried 
into  the  art  of  the  time  with  greater  intelligence  and  more 
effective  craftsmanship. 

The  inference  must  not,  however,  be  drawn  that  because 
nature  and  the  antique  came  to  be  studied  in  Early  Renais- 
sance times  that  therefore  religion  was  discarded.  It  was  not. 
It  still  held  strong,  and  though  with  the  Renaissance  there 
came  about  a  strange  mingling  of  crime  and  corruption, 
aestheticism  and  immorality,  yet  the  Church  was  never 
abandoned  for  an  hour.  When  enlightenment  came,  people 
began  to  doubt  the  spiritual  power  of  the  Papacy.  They 
did  not  cringe  to  it  so  servilely  as  before.  Religion  was 
not  perfervidly  embraced  as  in  the  Middle  Ages,  but  there 
was  no  revolt.  The  Church  held  the  power  and  was  still  the 
patron  of  art.  The  painter's  subjects  extended  over  nature, 
the  antique,  the  fable,  allegory,  history,  portraiture;  but  the 
religious  subject  was  not  neglected.  Fully  three-quarters  of 
all  the  fifteenth-century  painting  was  done  for  the  Church, 
at  her  command,  and  for  her  purposes. 

But  art  was  not  so  wholly  pietistic  as  in  the  Gothic  age. 
The  study  of  nature  and  the  antique  materialized  painting 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


73 


somewhat.  The  outside  world  drew  the  painter's  eyes,  and 
the  beauty  of  the  religious  subject  and  its  sentiment,  with 
Franciscan  memories,  were  somewhat  dimmed  by  the  beauty 
of  natural  appearances.  There  was  some  loss  of  emotional 
power,  but  the  emotion  of  the  age  had  much  to  lose.  In 
the  fifteenth  century  it  was  still  strong. 

KNOWLEDGE  OF  THE 
ANTIQUE  AND  NATURE : 
The  revival  of  antique 
learning  —  humanism  — 
came  about  in  real  earn- 
est during  this  Early 
Renaissance  period.  The 
scholars  set  themselves 
the  task  of  restoring  the 
polite  learning  of  ancient 
Greece,  studying  coins 
and  marbles,  collecting 
manuscripts,  founding 
libraries  and  schools  of 
philosophy.  The  wealthy 
nobles  —  such  people  as 
the  Albizzi,  the  Medici, 
and  the  Dukes  of  Urbino 
—  encouragedit.  Ini 440 
Greek  was  taught  in  five 
cities.  Immediately  afterward,  with  Constantinople  falling 
into  the  hands  of  the  Turks,  came  an  influx  of  Greek 
scholars  into  Italy  bearing  some  further  scholastic  message. 
Then  followed  the  invention  of  printing  and  the  age  of  dis- 
covery on  land  and  sea.  Not  the  antique  alone  but  the 
natural  were  being  pried  into  by  the  spirit  of  inquiry. 
Botany,  geology,  astronomy,  chemistry,  medicine,  anatomy, 
law,  literature  —  nothing  seemed  to  escape  the  keen  eye  of 


FIG.   32.  —  POLLAJUOLO.      PORTRAIT. 
POLDI-PEZZOLI   MUSEUM,    MILAN. 


74  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

the  time.  Knowledge  was  being  accumulated  from  every 
source,  and  the  arts  were  all  assimilating  it  if  not  directly 
reflecting   it. 

The  influence  of  the  newly  discovered  classic  marbles  upon 
painting  was  perhaps  not  so  great  as  is  usually  supposed. 
The  painters  studied  them,  but  did  not  closely  follow  or  imitate 
them.  Occasionally  in  such  men  as  Botticelli  and  Mantegna 
we  see  a  following  of  sculpturesque  example  —  a  taking  of 
details  and  even  of  whole  figures  —  but  the  more  general 
effect  of  the  antique  marbles  was  to  impress  the  painters  with 
the  idea  that  nature  wTas  at  the  bottom  of  it  all.  They  turned 
to  the  earth  not  only  to  study  form  and  feature,  to  find  con- 
firmation of  the  Greek  view  and  to  discover  a  new  one  of  their 
own;  but  to  learn  about  perspective,  light,  shadow,  color  — 
in  short,  the  technical  features  of  art.  True,  religion  was  the 
chief  subject,  but  nature  wras  used  to  give  it  setting.  All  the 
fifteenth-century  painting  shows  nature  study,  force,  character, 
sincerity;  but  it  does  not  show  elegance,  grace,  or  the  full 
complement  of  skill.  The  wrork  is  frank,  truthful,  forceful; 
but  naive  in  its  awkwardness,  its  harshness,  at  times  its  crude- 
ness.  For,  after  all,  the  Early  Renaissance  wras  the  promise 
of  great  things;   the  High  Renaissance  was  the  fulfilment. 

FRESCO  AND  PANEL:  The  chief  work  at  this  time  was 
done  in  fresco  on  the  walls  of  chapels,  churches,  cloisters,  and, 
occasionally,  municipal  buildings.  The  architectural  spaces 
to  be  filled  dictated  the  style  of  composition  and  yet  left 
abundant  freedom  to  the  artist  in  its  treatment.  In  panel 
pictures  and  altar-pieces  tempera  was  used.  Painting  in  oil 
was  known  probably  early  in  the  Renaissance  but  not  exten- 
sively employed  until  the  last  quarter  of  the  fifteenth  century. 

FLORENTINE  SCHOOL:  In  technical  knowledge  and  in- 
tellectual grasp  the  Florentines  wTere  the  leaders.  It  has  been 
said  that  they  were  draftsmen  rather  than  color ists  which 
is  measurably  true  though  their  sense  of  color  was  not  wanting 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


75 


when  distributed  in  flat  fields  or  planes.  Masolino  (1384- 
1440?)  was  one  of  the  first  to  take  up  nature  decisively  —  one 
of  the  first  to  study  from  the  nude  human  figure,  as  his  Bap- 
tism at  Castiglione  d'Olona  testifies.  He  shows  nature  study 
also  in  portrait  heads,  in  draperies,  in  landscape.     He  was 


FIG.    33.  —  BOTTICELLI.      SPRING    (DETAIL).      ACADEMY,    FLORENCE. 

a  remarkable  painter  and  doubtless  handed  on  a  strong  nature 
impulse  to  his  pupil  Masaccio.  At  any  rate  Masaccio  (1401- 
1428)  became  the  first  great  nature  student  ofhis  time  at 
Florence.  He  continued  the  Giotto  tradition  in  his  grasp  of 
nature  as  a  whole,  his  mastery  of  form,  his  plastic  composi- 
tion, his  free  broad  folds  of  drapery.  In  grouping,  in  light, 
perspective,  and  landscape,  he  greatly  advanced  the  knowledge 


76  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

of  the  time.  Though  an  exact  student  he  was  not  a  mere  sur- 
face realist.  He  had  a  large  artistic  sense,  a  breadth  of  view, 
and  a  comprehension  of  nature  as  a  mass  that  Michael  Angelo 
and  Raphael  did  not  disdain  to  follow.  He  was  little  of  a 
pietist,  and  there  was  no  great  religious  feeling  in  his  work. 
Dignified  truthful  appearance  was  his  creed,  and  in  this  he 
was  doubtless  influenced  by  Donatello  the  sculptor. 

The  robust  form,  the  strong  characterization,  the  large 
view  of  nature  shown  by  Donatello  in  sculpture  had  a  very 
potent  influence  upon  many  of  the  Florentine  painters.  Com- 
bined with  the  example  of  Masaccio  it  gave  a  decided  stamp 
to  early  Florentine  art.  The  sturdy  realism,  the  virile  drawing 
of  Andrea  del  Castagno  (i3o6?-i457),  the  scientific  perspective 
and  realistic  figures  of  Paolo  Uccello  (1397-1475),  the  positive 
profiles  of  Domenico  Veneziano  (1400-1461),  the  study  of  the 
nude,  the  good  modelling,  the  fine  movement  of  Antonio 
Pollajuolo  (1429-1498)  and  his  brother-assistant  Piero  (1443- 
1496)  may  be  traced  almost  directly  to  the  Donatello- 
Masaccio  influence.  Contemporary  with  these  men  were 
other  painters  who  hesitated  over  the  new  ideal,  took  up 
nature  study  with  indecision,  or  perhaps  clung  fondly  to  the 
gold-embossed  ornament  and  gilded  halos  of  the  past.  Benozzo 
Gozzoli  (1420-1497)  perhaps  belongs  just  here.  His  Adora- 
tion of  the  Magi  in  the  Riccardi  palace,  Florence,  is  the  most 
brilliantly  told  story  in  all  Florentine  art,  with  its  fine  types, 
superb  horses,  gay  trappings,  and  excellent  landscape;  Baldo- 
vinetti  (1425-1499)  with  much  charm  of  color  and  sense  of 
space  in  landscape  nevertheless  had  much  of  the  past  in  his 
conceptions  and  methods;  and  even  Fra  Filippo  Lippi  (1406- 
1469)  though  following  Masaccio  to  some  extent  was  largely 
influenced  by  the  Gothic  tradition  in  the  hands  of  Lorenzo 
Monaco  and  Fra  Angelico.  Still,  Fra  Filippo  helped  to  mod- 
ernize Italian  art  and  make  it  intimate  while  still  retaining 
religious  sentiment  and  pathetic  types.     He  left  a  pupil  of 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


77 


some  note  in  Pesellino  (1422-1457)  and  a  son  Filippino  Lippi 
(1457-1504)  who  took  up  and  intensified  his  father's  sentiment 
mingling  it  with  something  of  sadness  taken  perhaps  from 
Botticelli.  Filippino  was  an  artist  of  ability,  with  much 
charm  and  tenderness,  and  considerable  style;  but  his  frescos 
in  the  Brancacci  Chapel,  finishing  the  incompleted  work  of 
Masaccio,  show,  by  contrast,  that  he  had  not  the  Masaccio 
power  or  vigor.  Purity 
of  type  and  graceful  senti- 
ment in  pose  and  gesture, 
as  shown  in  his  Badia  al- 
tar-piece, are  more  char- 
acteristic of  his  work. 

Botticelli  (1444-15 10) 
was  also  a  pupil  of  Fra  Fi- 
lippo  and  in  his  early  work 
followed  his  master  very 
closely,  but  later  on  de- 
veloped a  manner  of  his 
own  that  became  almost 
a  mannerism.  He  was 
not  so  remarkable  for  his 
strength  as  for  his  culture 
and 

of  looking  at  things.  He 
was  a  student  of  the  antique  and  one  of  the  first  to  take  subjects 
from  it,  a  lover  also  of  the  natural,  and  at  the  same  time  a 
painter  imbued  with  the  mystic,  the  melancholy,  even  at 
times,  the  morbid.  His  willowy  figures  are  more  passionate 
than  powerful,  more  individual  than  comprehensive,  somewhat 
lacking  in  repose  and  perhaps  strained  in  feeling;  but  with 
all  excesses  accounted  for,  the  types  are  still  very  attractive 
in  tenderness  and  in  grace.  Changing  his  style  under  sev- 
eral influences  Botticelli  was  from  the  first  a  technician  of 


an    individual    way    fig.  34. —  ghirlandajo.    figure  from  birth  of 

JOHN    THE    BAPTIST.       S.    M.    NOVELLA,    FLORENCE. 


78  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

ability.  His  outline  was  arbitrary,  derived  through  the 
Giottesque  from  Byzantine  art,  and  not  always  true  to  nature 
or  the  model,  but  graceful  to  the  last  degree  and  beautiful 
purely  as  line.  His  decorative  sense  was  highly  developed,  and 
his  making  of  the  pattern  as  shown  in  his  Allegory  of  Spring 
something  marvellous.  The  same  picture  speaks  for  his 
color  instinct,  and  his  Adoration  of  the  Magi  in  the  Uffizi 
proclaims  him,  for  his  time,  a  most  competent  brushman. 
Unfortunately  he  had  many  followers  and  imitators  and  many 
of  their  works  are  still  attributed  to  Botticelli.  Amico  di 
Sandro  is  not  a  painter  but  a  name  invented  by  Mr.  Berenson, 
to  carry  a  dozen  or  more  pictures  in  European  galleries, 
evidently  painted  by  one  painter  and  he  a  follower  of  Botti- 
celli. Jacopo  del  Sellajo  (i44i?-i4o6)  and  Botticini  (1446- 
1498)  were  eclectics  in  the  Florentine  school  and  followed 
at  different  times  several  of  the  more  prominent  leaders 
including  Botticelli  and  Verrocchio. 

Verrocchio  (1435-1488)  was  a  pupil  of  Donatello  and  was 
more  of  a  sculptor  than  a  painter,  but  he  taught  the  truth  of 
Donatello  to  numerous  pupils,  among  them  Leonardo  da 
Vinci,  and  had  a  marked  influence  in  Florence.  His  one 
authentic  picture  of  the  Baptism  at  Florence  shows  the  sculp- 
tor, even  the  goldsmith,  in  figures  and  foliage,  but  it  also 
discloses  a  new  vision  of  landscape  presaging  that  of  Leonardo. 
The  latter  as  a  youth  probably  worked  on  this  picture  and 
may  have  painted  in  the  landscape  as  well  as  the  little  angel 
at  the  left. 

Lorenzo  di  Credi  (1456-1537),  though  a  late  Florentine 
and  a  pupil  of  Verrocchio,  never  outgrew  the  fifteenth  century. 
He  was  a  painter,  with  much  purity  of  feeling,  but  weak  at 
times.  His  drawing  was  fairly  good,  but  lacked  force.  There 
is  much  detail  study,  and  considerable  grace  about  his  work, 
but  little  of  strength.  Piero  di  Cosimo  (1439-1507)  was 
somewhat  fantastic  in  composition,   pleasant  in   color,   and 


ITALIAN  PAINTING  79 

rather  distinguished  in  landscape  backgrounds.  He  was 
influenced  by  Verrocchio  but  was  a  direct  pupil  of  Cosimo 
Rosselli  (1439-1507) — one  of  the  productive  painters  of 
Florence  but  not  one  of  the  epoch-making  masters  of  the  time. 
Domenico   Ghirlandajo   (1449- 1494)    was  also  somewhat  in- 


FIG.   35.  —  MELOZZO   DA   FORLI.      PLAYING   ANGEL. 
SACRISTY   OF   ST.   PETERS,   ROME. 

rluenced  by  Verrocchio  but  he  took  impulses  from  many 
sources  and  was  more  eclectic  than  original.  He  produced 
an  excellent  quality  of  academic  art.  He  combined  the  art 
learning  of  his  time,  drew  well,  handled  drapery  broadly  and 
simply,  composed  effectively,  and  was  fairly  good  in  color; 
but  with  -all  his  robust  temperament  and  dignified  style  he 
produced  little  that  was  original  or  vital.     Yet  he  was  an 


80  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

important  teacher  and  a  master  of  influence  in  spite  of  having 
no  distinction  and,  at  times,  being  deadly  prosaic.  Mainardi 
(1450-15 13)  was  a  brother-in-law  of  Ghirlandajo  and  his 
somewhat  servile  follower. 

UMBRIAN  SCHOOLS:  Umbria  is  a  geographical  catch-all 
for  the  several  schools  of  Foligno,  Perugia,  Gubbio,  and  the 
Marches.  At  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century  the  old 
Sienese  school  founded  by  Duccio  and  the  Lorenzetti  was  in 
a  state  of  decline.  It  had  been  remarkable  for  sentiment, 
and  just  what  effect  this  sentiment  of  the  old  Sienese  school 
had  upon  the  painters  of  the  neighboring  Umbrian  schools 
of  the  early  fifteenth  century  is  matter  of  speculation  with 
historians.  It  must  have  had  some,  though  the  early  painters, 
like  Ottaviano  Nelli  (c.  1400-1440),  do  not  show  it.  That 
which  afterward  became  known  as  the  Umbrian  sentiment 
possibly  first  appeared  in  the  work  of  Niccolo  da  Foligno 
(i430?-i502)  a  painter  of  emotional  feeling  and  passionate 
force.  He  was  probably  a  pupil  of  Benozzo  Gozzoli,  who 
was,  in  turn,  a  pupil  of  Fra  Angelico.  That  would  indicate 
Florentine  influence,  but  there  were  many  influences  at  work 
in  this  upper-valley  country.  Sentiment  had  been  prevalent 
enough  all  through  Central  Italian  painting  during  the  Gothic 
age  —  more  so  at  Siena  than  elsewhere.  With  the  Renais- 
sance Florence  rather  forsook  sentiment  for  precision  of  forms 
and  equilibrium  of  groups;  but  the  Umbrian  towns,  being 
more  provincial,  held  fast  to  their  faith,  their  detail,  and  their 
gold  ornamentation.  Their  influence  upon  Florence  was 
slight,  but  the  influence  of  Florence  upon  them  was  consid- 
erable. Some  Florentines,  such  as  Benozzo,  went  into  the 
Umbrian  country  and  taught  there  but  oftener  the  larger 
city  drew  the  provincials  its  way  to  learn  the  new  methods. 
The  result  was  a  group  of  Umbro-Florentine  painters, 
combining  some  up-country  sentiment  with  Florentine  tech- 
nique. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


81 


UMBRO-FLORENTINES :    Niccolo  da  Foligno  and  Bonfigli 

(1425-1496)  both  come  under  this  designation,  having  both 
been  pupils  under  Benozzo.  Bonfigli  was  one  of  the  earliest  of 
the  Perugian  school  and  had  a  part  in  shaping  its  course. 
Fiorenzo  di  Lorenzo  (1440-15  21)  was  much  influenced  by 
Benozzo,  Pollajuolo,  and  others  —  a  painter  of  much  fancy, 
fine  color,  and  excellent  decorative  instincts.  He  is  now 
thought  to  have  been  the 
true  head  of  the  Peru- 
gian school  and  the 
master  of  Perugino  and 
Pinturicchio.  The  most 
positive  in  methods,  how- 
ever, among  the  Umbro- 
Florentines  was  Piero 
della  Francesca  (1416- 
1492).  Umbrian  born  and 
Florentine  trained  he 
abandoned  sentiment  and 
became  scientific, learned, 
and  ultimately  a  remark- 
able technician.  He  knew 
drawing,  perspective, 
light-and-shade,  atmos- 
phere, as  none  before 
him.     He    saw    largely, 

characterized  strongly,  drew  and  composed  simply.  He  showed 
no  emotion  but  was  always  serene,  well-poised,  dignified,  al- 
most classic  in  his  repose.  From  working  in  the  Umbrian 
country  his  influence  upon  his  fellow-craftsmen  was  large.  It 
showed  directly  in  Signorelli  (1441-1523),  whose  master  he 
was,  and  whose  style  he  probably  formed.  Signorelli  was  Um- 
brian born,  like  Piero,  and  there  was  something  of  the  Umbrian 
sentiment  about  him.     He  was  a  draftsman  and  threw  his 


FIG.   36.  —  PERUGINO.      ST.    MICHAEL    (DETAIL). 
FLORENCE   ACADEMY. 


82  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

strength  in  line,  producing  athletic,  square-shouldered  figures 
in  violent  action,  with  complicated  foreshortenings  quite  aston- 
ishing. The  most  daring  man  of  his  time,  he  was  a  master  in 
anatomy,  composition,  movement.  There  was  nothing  select 
about  his  type,  and  nothing  suave  about  his  painting.  His 
color  was  hot  and  coarse,  his  lights  lurid,  his  shadows  brick 
red,  his  textures  leathery.  He  was,  however,  a  master-drafts- 
man, and  a  man  of  large  conceptions  and  great  strength.  Me- 
lozzo  da  Forli  (1438-1494)  was  another  pupil  of  Piero  and  a 
painter  of  much  force.  His  types  are  large,  his  drawing  superb, 
his  sense  of  space  excellent.  He  was  a  spirited  painter  rising 
at  times  to  grandeur  in  his  simplicity  of  form  and  dignity  of 
composition.  Giovanni  Santi  (i44o?-i404),  the  father  of 
Raphael,  and  Marco  Palmezzano  (1456-1543?)  were  both 
pupils  of  Melozzo. 

The  true  descent  of  the  Umbrian  sentiment  was  probably 
through  Foligno,  Bonfigli,  and  Fiorenzo  di  Lorenzo  to  Perugino 
(1446-15  24).  Signorelli  and  Perugino  seem  opposed  to  each 
other  in  their  art.  The  first  was  the  forerunner  of  Michel- 
angelo, the  second  was  apparent  in  Raphael;  and  the  differ- 
ence between  Michelangelo  and  Raphael  was,  in  a  less  varied 
degree,  the  difference  between  Signorelli  and  Perugino.  The 
one  showed  strong  Florentine  line,  the  other  Umbrian  senti- 
ment and  color.  It  is  in  Perugino  that  we  find  the  old  Gothic 
feeling.  Fervor,  tenderness,  and  devotion,  with  soft  eyes, 
delicate  features,  and  pathetic  looks  characterize  his  art. 
The  figure  is  slight,  graceful,  and  in  pose  sentimentally  inclined 
to  one  side.  The  head  is  almost  affectedly  placed  on  the 
shoulders,  and  the  round  olive  face  is  full  of  wistful  tenderness. 
This  Perugino  type,  used  in  all  his  paintings,  is  summarized 
by  Taine  as  a  "body  belonging  to  the  Renaissance  containing 
a  soul  that  belonged  to  the  Middle  Ages."  There  was  no 
dramatic  fire  and  fury  about  Perugino.  His  composition  was 
simple,  with  graceful  figures  in  repose  and  this  was  comple- 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


83 


mented  by  simple  background  landscapes.  The  coloring  was 
rich,  and  there  were  brilliant  effects  obtained  by  the  use  of 
oils.  He  was  among  the  first  of  his  school  to  use  that  medium. 
His  friend  and  fellow- worker,  Pinturicchio  (1454-1513),  did 
not,  as  a  rule,  use  oils,  but  was  a  superior  painter  in  fresco. 


FIG.   37.  —  PINTURICCHIO.       DISPUTE   OF   ST.   CATHERINE    (DETAIL). 
BORGIA   APARTMENTS.      VATICAN,   ROME. 

In  this  medium  he  painted  several  monumental  series  at 
Rome  and  Siena,  giving  the  walls  great  splendor  of  color  and 
gilding,  as  in  the  Borgia  apartments  in  the  Vatican.  In  type 
and  sentiment  he  was  much  like  Perugino,  in  composition  a 
little  extravagant  at  times,  in  landscape  backgrounds  quite 
original  and  inventive.     He  was  a  very  winning  and  gracious 


84  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

painter,  not  more  forceful  than  Perugino,  though  more  varied 
and  more  interesting  —  a  man  with  a  highly  developed  decora- 
tive sense  well  supplemented  by  skill.  Perugino's  best  pupils, 
aside  from  Raphael,  were  Lo  Spagna  (c.  1500-15 28),  who 
followed  his  master's  style  until  the  High  Renaissance,  when 
he  became  a  follower  of  Raphael,  and  Eusebio  di  San  Giorgio 
(c.  1492-15  2 7),  an  eclectic  of  some  ability. 

SCHOOLS  OF  FERRARA  AND  BOLOGNA :  The  painters  of 
Ferrara,  in  the  fifteenth  century,  seemed  to  have  relied  upon 
Padua  for  their  teaching.  They,  however,  soon  developed 
originality  of  their  own  and  had  a  decided  influence  upon 
the  Romagno-Emilian  painters.  The  best  of  the  early  men 
was  Cosimo  Tura  (c.  1430-1495),  who  showed  the  Paduan 
influence  of  Squarcione  in  anatomical  insistences,  coarse  joints, 
infinite  detail,  and  sometimes  fantastic  ornamentation;  but 
he  was  a  painter  of  distinct  sincerity,  intensity,  and  force. 
His  power  is  at  times  tragic,  his  drawing  sculpturesque  and 
almost  classical,  his  color  deep,  resonant,  superb.  He  was 
probably  the  founder  of  the  school  and  Francesco  Cossa 
(c.  143 5-1480)  was  one  of  his  pupils,  reproducing  his  master's 
types  with  a  smoother  and  less  positive  brush.  Ercole  Roberti 
(c.  1430-1496)  was  another  pupil  of  Tura,  angular  in  drawing, 
odd  in  proportions,  fine  in  color  —  a  decided  individual  force. 
Ercole  di  Giulio  Cesare  Grandi  (c.  1464-1535)  and  Francesco 
Bianchi-Ferrari  (1457-1510),  pupils  of  Ercole  Roberti,  were 
later  and  slighter  manifestations  of  Ferrarese  methods. 

It  seems  that  Cossa  after  a  time  removed  from  Ferrara  to 
Bologna  and  perhaps  his  pupil,  Lorenzo  Costa  (1460-1535), 
went  with  him.  At  any  rate  Costa  became  the  head  of  the 
Bolognese  School.  At  first  he  was  a  painter  of  considerable 
force  with  good  color  and  quite  original  types;  but  he  was 
afterward  tempered  by  Southern  influences  to  softness  and 
sentiment.  This  was  the  result  of  Paduan  methods  meeting 
at  Bologna  with  Umbrian  sentiment.     The  Perugian  type  and 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


85 


influence    had    somehow  found  their  way  to  Bologna,    and 
showed  in  the  work  of  Francia  (1450-15 17),  a  pupil  and  fel- 
low-worker with  Costa.     Though  trained  as  a  goldsmith,  and 
learning    painting    in   a 
different  school,  Francia, 
as  regards  his  sentiment, 
belongs  in  the  same  cate- 
gory   with    Perugino. 
Even  his  subjects,  types, 
and  treatment  were,  at 
times,    more     Umbrian 
than  Bolognese.   He  was 
not    so    pronounced    in 
feeling  as  Perugino,  but 
at  times  he  appeared  lof- 
tier in  conception.    His 
color   was   usually  cold, 
his  drawing  a  little  sharp 
at  first,  as  showing  the 
goldsmith's    hand,     the 
surfaces  smooth,  the  de- 
tail elaborate.  It  is  prob- 
able that  Francia  at  first 
was  influenced  by  Ercole 
Roberti's  methods,  and 
it  is  possible  that  he  in 
turn  influenced  his  mas- 
ter, Costa,  in  the  matter 
of  refined  drawing   and 
sentiment,  though  Costa 
always    adhered    to    a 

certain  detafl  and  ornament  coming  perhaps  from  Cossa,  and  a 
landscape  background  that  is  peculiar  to  himself,  and  yet  re- 
minds one  of    Pinturicchio's  landscapes.      These   two   men, 


FIG.   38.  —  COSSA.      ST.    JOHN.      BRERA,    MILAN. 


86  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

Francia  and  Costa,  were  the  Perugino  and  Pinturicchio  of  the 
Bolognese  school,  and  the  most  important  painters  in  that 
school.  There  were  a  number  of  pupils  the  best  of  whom  was 
Timoteo  Viti  (146 7- 15  24)  who  finally  fused  Bolognese  and  Um- 
brian  sentiment  and  helped  form  the  early  style  of  Raphael. 
THE  LOMBARD  SCHOOL:  The  designation  of  the  Lom- 
bard school  is  rather  a  vague  one  in  the  history  of  painting, 
and  is  used  by  historians  to  cover  a  number  of  isolated  schools 
or  men  in  the  Lombardy  region.  In  the  fifteenth  century 
these  schools  counted  for  little  either  in  men  or  in  works. 
The  principal  activity  was  about  Milan,  which  drew  painters 
from  Brescia,  Vincenza,  and  elsewhere  to  form  what  is  known 
as  the  Milanese  school.  Vincenzo  Foppa  (c.  142 7-1 502), 
of  Brescia,  and  afterward  at  Milan,  was  probably  the  founder 
of  this  Milanese  school.  His  painting  is  of  rather  a  harsh, 
exacting  nature;  his  form  is  wooden  or  rather  sculptural, 
pointing  to  the  influence  of  Padua,  at  which  place  he  perhaps 
got  his  early  art  training.  He  was  influenced  from  several 
sources  but  always  maintained  a  rugged  vitality  of  his  own. 
Borgognone  (1 450-1 523)  is  set  down  as  his  pupil,  a  painter  of 
much  sentiment,  fine  decorative  sense,  excellent  color,  and  very 
good  workmanship.  His  color  and  his  gold  work  are  decidedly 
attractive.  Other  pupils  of  Foppa  were  Civerchio  (c.  1470- 
1544)  and  Zenale  (1436-1526).  Bramantino  (c.  1460-1529) 
was  under  the  spell  of  Foppa  and  Bramante.  The  school  was 
afterward  greatly  influenced  by  the  example  of  Leonardo  da 
Vinci,  as  will  appear  further  on. 

EXTANT  WORKS:  For  lists  of  painters'  works  and  their  loca- 
tion follow  Berenson,  Brown  and  Rankin,  and  Crowe  and'Caval- 
caselle  as  before  cited  at  end  of  Chapter  V.  Generally  speaking  the 
chief  works  of  the  Florentines,  Umbrians,  Ferrarese,  Bolognese, 
and  Lombards  are  still  to  be  found  in  the  museums  and  churches  in 
that  town  where  each  respective  school  was  centred.  Foppa  and 
Borgognone,  for  instances,  are  best  seen  at  Milan  as  Costa  and  Francia 
at  Bologna  and  Perugino  at  Perugia. 


CHAPTER   VII 
ITALIAN   PAINTING 

EARLY   RENAISSANCE,    14.OO-1500. — CONTINUED 

Books  Recommended:  Those  on  Italian  art  before  men- 
tioned; also  consult  the  General  Bibliography,  Boschini,  La 
Carta  del  Navegar;  Cruttwell,  Andrea  Mantegna;  Fry,  Giovanni 
Bellini;  Gronau,  /  Bellini;  Die  Quellen  der  Biographie  des 
Antonello  da  Messina;  Hill,  Pisanello;  Kristeller,  Andrea 
Mantegna;  Ludwig  and  Molmenti,  Carpaccio;  Marzo,  Di 
Antonello  da  Messina  e  dei  suoi  conjiunti;  Molmenti,  La  Pittura 
Veneziana;  Rushforth,  Crivelli;  Testi,  Storia  delta  Pittura 
Veneziana;  Venturi,  Le  Origini  delta  Pittura  Veneziana. 

PADUAN  SCHOOL :  It  was  at  Padua  in  the  north  that  the 
influence  of  classic  sculpture  made  itself  strongly  apparent. 
Umbria  remained  true  to  the  religious  sentiment,  Florence 
engaged  itself  largely  with  nature  study  and  technical  problems, 
introducing  here  and  there  draperies  and  poses  that  showed 
knowledge  of  sculptural  effects,  but  at  Padua  much  of  the 
classic  in  drapery,  figures,  and  architecture  seems  to  have 
been  taken  directly  from  the  rediscovered  antique  or  the 
modern  bronze. 

The  early  men  of  the  school  were  hardly  great  enough  to 
call  for  more  than  passing  notice.  During  the  fourteenth 
century  there  was  some  Giotto  influence  felt  —  that  painter 
having  been  at  Padua  working  in  the  Arena  Chapel.  It 
shows  in  Guariento  (c.  1365)  who  was  about  the  only  early 
painter  of  any  importance.  Later  on  there  was  a  slight  in- 
fluence from  Gentile  da  Fabriano  and  Altichieri  of  Verona. 


88  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

But  these  influences  seem  to  have  died  out  and  the  real  direc- 
tion of  the  school  in  the  early  fifteenth  century  was  given  by 
Francesco  Squarcione  (1304-1474).  He  was  an  enlightened 
man,  a  student,  a  collector  and  an  admirer  of  ancient  sculpture, 
and  though  no  great  painter  himself  he  taught  an  anatomical 
statuesque  art,  based  on  Roman  marbles  and  Florentine 
nature  as  seen  in  Donatello  and  his  school,  to  many  pupils. 

Squarcione's  work  has  perished  except  for  a  Madonna  at 
Berlin,  but  his  teaching  was  reflected  in  the  work  of  his  great 
pupil  Andrea  Mantegna  (1431-1506).  Yet  Mantegna  never 
received  the  full  complement  of  his  knowledge  from  Squarcione. 
He  was  of  an  observing  nature  and  probably  studied  Giotto, 
Paolo  Uccello,  and  Fra  Filippo,  some  of  whose  works  were 
then  in  Paduan  edifices.  He  probably  gained  color  knowledge 
from  the  Venetian  Bellini,  who  lived  at  Padua  at  one  time  and 
who  were  connected  with  Mantegna  by  marriage.  Moreover, 
he  lived  in  a  university  town  and  was  probably  schooled  in 
its  learning.  But  the  sculpturesque  side  of  his  art  came  from 
Squarcione,  from  a  study  of  the  antique,  and  from  a  deeper 
study  of  Donatello,  whose  bronzes  to  this  day  are  to  be  seen 
within  and  without  the  Paduan  Duomo  of  S.  Antonio. 

The  sculpturesque  is  characteristic  of  Mantegna's  work. 
His  people  are  hard,  rigid  at  times,  immovable  human  beings, 
not  so  much  turned  to  stone  as  turned  to  bronze  —  the  bronze 
of  Donatello.  There  is  not  too  much  sense  of  motion  about 
them.  The  drawing  is  sharp  and  harsh,  the  drapery,  evi- 
dently studied  from  sculpture,  is  "liney,"  and  the  archaeology 
is  often  more  scientific  than  artistic.  Mantegna  was  not, 
however,  entirely  devoted  to  the  sculpturesque.  He  was 
one  of  the  severest  nature  students  of  the  Pearly  Renaissance, 
knew  about  nature,  and  carried  it  out  in  exacting  detail  in  his 
art.  In  addition  he  was  a  master  of  light-and-shade,  under- 
stood composition,  space,  atmosphere,  pattern,  and  was  as 
scientific  in  perspective  as  Piero  della  Francesca.     There  is 


ITALIAN  PAINTING  89 

stiffness  in  his  figures  but  nevertheless  great  truth  and  char- 
acter. The  forms  are  noble,  even  grand,  and  for  invention 
and  imagination  they  were  never,  in  his  time,  carried  further 
or  higher.  He  was  little  of  a  sentimentalist  or  an  emotionalist, 
but  as  a  draftsman,  a  creator  of  noble  forms,  a  man  of  power, 


■■^^^          *^^^H^^H 

f/P^t 

vl 

,;   1    *            11 

^BjBj^te1.„^r  ■■■  i-jfl 

#£ 

■r 

?H  ■&"         S^ 

V£s  Kfvjfl 

■SKLJo 

Jf    BB>                      ■■  F 

H  a  J 

Li5^fc)i^*-^i^^'J 

FIG.    3g.  —  MANTEGNA.      HOLY  FAMILY.      DRESDEN   GALLERY. 

he  stood  second  to  none  in  the  century.  And  also  as  a  colorist. 
His  sense  of  color  as  in  the  Louvre  Allegories  or  the  Urhzi 
triptych  is  simply  astonishing.  Even  his  contemporaries  in 
the  Venetian  school  hardly  equalled  him  here.  All  told  he 
was  the  greatest  of  the  North  Italians  in  the  fifteenth  century. 
Of  Squarcione's  other  pupils  Pizzolo  (c.  1470)  was  the  most 
promising,  but  died  early.  Marco  Zoppo  (1440-1498)  seems 
to  have  followed  the  Paduan  formula  of  hardness,  dryness, 


go  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

and  exacting  detail.  He  was  possibly  influenced  by  Cosimo 
Tura,  and  in  turn  influenced  somewhat  the  Bolognese  school. 
Mantegna,  however,  was  the  strongest  of  the  school,  and  his 
influence  was  far-reaching.  He  swayed  the  school  of  Venice 
in  matters  of  drawing,  beside  influencing  the  Lombard  and 
Veronese  schools  in  their  beginnings. 

SCHOOLS  OF  VERONA  AND  VICENZA:  Artistically 
Verona  belongs  with  the  Venetian  provinces,  and  was  largely 
influenced  by  Venice  except  at  the  very  start.  The  earliest 
painter  there  was,  perhaps,  Altichieri  (fl.  1330-1395),  whose 
ruined  frescos  in  S.  Anastasia,  Verona,  still  show  fine  individ- 
ual heads  and  somewhat  confused  patterns.  He  had  an 
indifferent  follower  in  Jacopo  Aranzi  and  a  very  strong  one  in 
Vittore  Pisano  (1385-1455),  called  Pisanello,  who  was  the 
earliest  painter  of  note.  He  was  not,  however,  distinctly 
Veronese  in  his  art.  He  was  medallist  and  painter  both, 
worked  with  Gentile  da  Fabriano  in  the  Ducal  Palace  at 
Venice  and  elsewhere,  and  his  art  seems  to  have  an  affinity 
with  that  of  his  companion.  But  he  must  not  be  thought  a 
mere  follower  of  any  one.  He  had  distinct  individuality,  and 
pronounced  force,  while  in  flat  decorative  design  he  was  a 
master.  Even  the  small  portrait  of  Ginevra  d'Este  in  the 
Louvre  shows  his  decorative  sense.  Moreover,  he  was  the 
great  medallist  of  Italy  —  an  artist  of  uncommon  genius. 
After  Pisanello  and  somewhat  in  his  style  came  Stefano  da 
Zevio  (i393?-i45i)  a  painter  of  some  ability. 

In  the  fifteenth  century  the  influences  at  Verona  were  very 
much  confused.  Venice  and  Padua  were  dominant  centres 
and  their  views  of  art  had  weight  with  the  provincials.  But 
Verona  still  held  fast  to  something  of  Pisanello 's  teaching  and 
was  not  a  mere  echo  of  others.  This  shows  in  Liberale  da 
Verona  (1451-1536)  who  was  at  first  a  miniaturist,  but  after- 
ward developed  a  larger  style  based  on  a  following  of  Man- 
tegna's  work,  with  some  Venetian  influences  showing  in  the 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


91 


coloring  and  backgrounds.  Yet  he  still  held  to  a  decorative 
sense  peculiar  to  Verona.  Francesco  Bonsignori  (1453- 
15 19)  was  of  the  Verona  school,  but  under  the  Mantegna  in- 
fluence. His  style  at  first  was  rather  severe  and  indicated 
some  Venetian  teaching.     He  developed  much  ability  in  por- 


FIG.  40. — LORENZO  VENEZIANO.      ANNUNCIATION.       ACADEMY,  VENICE. 

traiture,  and  was  a  painter  of  considerable  strength.  Do- 
menico  Morone  (c.  1442-1503),  a  follower  of  Liberale,  his 
son,  Francesco  Morone  (i474?-i52o),  Girolamo  dai  Libri 
(1474-1546)  were  other  painters  in  the  school  revealing  local 
peculiarities  with  Venetian  features  showing  here  and  there. 
Francesco  Caroto  (1470-1546),  a  pupil  of  Liberale,  really 
belongs  to  the  next  century  —  the  High  Renaissance.     His 


92  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

early  works  show  his  education  in  Veronese  and  Paduan 
methods  as  his  later  works  the  influence  of  High  Renaissance 
painters  such  as  Raphael. 

In  the  school  of  Vicenza  the  only  master  of  much  note 
in  this  Early  Renaissance  time  was  its  founder,  Bartolommeo 
Montagna  (1450-1523),  a  painter  of  much  severity  and  at 
times  grandeur  of  style.  He  was  a  pupil  or  follower  of  Alvise 
Vivarini  and  was  possibly  influenced  by  Gentile  Bellini.  He 
is  usually  considered  as  belonging  to  the  Venetian  school. 

VENETIAN  LIFE  AND  ART:  The  conditions  of  art  pro- 
duction in  Venice  during  the  Early  Renaissance  were  quite 
different  from  those  in  Florence  or  Umbria.  By  the  disposi- 
tion of  her  people  Venice  was  not  a  learned  or  devout  city. 
Religion,  though  the  chief  subject,  was  not  the  chief  spirit 
of  Venetian  art.  Christianity  was  accepted  by  the  Venetians, 
but  with  no  fevered  enthusiasm.  The  Church  was  strong 
enough  there  to  defy  the  Papacy  at  one  time,  and  yet  religion 
with  the  people  was  perhaps  more  of  a  civic  function  or  a 
duty  than  a  spiritual  worship.  It  was  sincere  in  its  way, 
and  the  early  painters  painted  religious  themes  for  and  at  the 
command  of  the  Church  with  honesty,  but  the  Venetians  were 
much  too  proud  and  worldly  minded  to  take  anything  very 
seriously  except  their  own  splendor  and  their  own  power. 

Again,  the  Venetians  were  not  humanists  or  students  of 
the  revived  classic.  They  housed  manuscripts,  harbored 
exiled  humanists,  received  the  influx  of  Greek  scholars  after 
the  fall  of  Constantinople,  and  later  the  celebrated  Aldine 
press  was  established  in  Venice;  but,  for  all  that,  classic 
learning  was  not  the  fancy  of  the  Venetians.  They  made  no 
quarrel  over  the  relative  merits  of  Plato  and  Aristotle,  dug  up 
no  classic  marbles,  had  no  revival  of  learning  in  a  Florentine 
sense.  They  were  merchant  princes,  winning  wealth  by  com- 
merce and  expending  it  lavishly  in  beautifying  their  island 
home.     Not  to  attain  great  learning,  but  to  revel  in  great 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


93 


splendor,  seems  to  have  been  their  aim.  Life  in  the  sovereign 
city  of  the  sea  was  a  worthy  existence  in  itself.  And  her 
geographical    and    political    position    aided    her    prosperity. 


FIG.   41.  —  VIVARJNI.     ALTARPIECE.     S.    ZACCARIA,   VENICE. 

Unlike  Florence  she  was  not  torn  by  contending  princes  within 
and  foreign  foes  without  —  at  least  not  to  her  harm.  She 
had  her  wars,  but  they  were  generally  on  distant  seas.  Popery, 
Paganism,  Despotism,  all  the  convulsions  of  Renaissance  life 
threatened  but  harmed  her  not.     Free  and  independent,  her 


94  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

kingdom  was  the  sea,  her  livelihood  commerce,  and  trade 
the  breath  of  her  nostrils. 

The  worldly  spirit  of  the  Venetian  people  brought  about  a 
worldly  and  luxurious  art.  Nothing  in  the  disposition  or  edu- 
cation of  the  Venetians  called  for  the  severe  or  the  intellectual. 
The  demand  was  for  rich  decoration  that  would  please  the 
senses  without  stimulating  the  intellect  or  firing  the  imagina- 
tion to  any  great  extent.  Line  and  form  were  not  so  well 
suited  to  them  as  color  —  the  most  sensuous  of  all  mediums. 
Color  prevailed  through  Venetian  art  from  the  very  beginning, 
and  was  its  distinctive  characteristic. 

Where  this  love  of  color  came  from  is  matter  of  specula- 
tion. The  most  rational  contention  is  that  Venice  in  its  color 
is  an  excellent  example  of  the  effect  of  commerce  on  art.  She 
was  a  trader  with  the  East  from  her  infancy  —  not  Constan- 
tinople and  the  Byzantine  East  alone,  but  back  of  these  the 
old  Mohammedan  East,  which  for  a  thousand  years  has  cast 
its  art  in  colors  rather  than  in  forms.  It  was  Eastern  orna- 
ment in  mosaics,  stuffs,  porcelains,  variegated  marbles,  brought 
by  ship  to  Venice  and  located  in  S.  Marco,  at  Murano,  and  at 
Torcello,  that  first  gave  the  color-impulse  to  the  Venetians. 
If  Florence  was  the  heir  of  Rome  and  its  austere  classicism, 
Venice  was  the  heir  of  Constantinople  and  its  color-charm. 
The  two  great  color  spots  in  Italy  at  this  day  are  Venice  and 
Ravenna,  commercial  footholds  of  the  Byzantines  in  Mediaeval 
days.  It  may  be  reasonably  concluded  that  Venice  derived 
her  color-sense  and  much  of  her  luxurious  and  material  view 
of  life  from  the  East. 

THE  EARLY  VENETIAN  PAINTERS:  Painting  at  Venice 
in  the  fourteenth  century  began  with  the  fabrication  of  mosaics 
and  ornamental  altar-pieces  of  rich  gold  stucco-work.  The 
"Greek  manner"  —  that  is,  the  Byzantine  —  was  practised 
early  in  the  fifteenth  century  with  very  decorative  results. 
Some  names  and  some  works  of  the  early  men  survive  at 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


95 


Venice.     Donato,   Caterino,   Semitecolo,  Lorenzo    Veneziano 

are  all  marked  by  good  color  and  rich  garmenting  with  much 
gold  work.  Jacobello  del  Fiore  (c.  1400-1439)  with  his  gilded 
stucco,  Giambono  (c.  1420-1460)  with  his  fine  sentiment  and 
color,  and  Negroponte,  a  Muranese  painter,  are  the  best  of 
the  very  early  men.  But  their  incrusted  Byzantine  style 
did  not  last  long.  Instead  of  lingering  for  a  hundred  years, 
as  at  Florence,  it  died  a 
natural  death  in  the  first 
half  of  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury. Gentile  da  Fabri- 
ano,  who  was. at  Venice 
before  1420,  painting  in 
the  Ducal  Palace  with 
Pisanello  as  his  assistant, 
may  have  brought  this 
about.  He  taught  there 
in  Venice,  was  the  master 
of  Jacopo  Bellini,  and  if 
not  the  teacher  then  the 
influencer  of  the  Vivarini 
at  Murano.  There  were 
two  of  the  Vivarini  in  the 
early  times,  so  far  as  can 
be  made  out,  Antonio 
Vivarini     (?-i47o)     who 

worked  with  Johannes  Alemannus  (fl.  1443-1446),  a  painter 
of  supposed  German  birth  and  training,  and  Bartolommeo 
Vivarini  (fl.  1450-1490),  a  younger  brother  of  Antonio.  They 
all  signed  themselves  from  Murano  (an  outlying  Venetian 
island),  where  they  were  producing  church  altar-pieces  with 
some  Paduan  influence  showing  in  their  painted  panels. 
They  were  excellent  craftsmen  and  produced  work  rich  in 
color  and  highly  decorative  in  gold  work.     They  made  up  the 


FIG.   42.  —  CRIVELLT.      MADONNA   AND   CHILD. 
BRERA,    MILAN. 


96  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

Muranese  school,  though  this  school  was  not  strongly  marked 
apart  either  in  characteristics  or  subjects  from  the  Venetian 
school,  of  which  it  was,  in  fact,  a  part. 

Bartolommeo  was  the  best  of  the  group,  —  a  painter  who 
shows  the  influence  of  Padua  in  his  statuesque  forms  and 
"liney"  drapery,  but  also  possesses  much  color-splendor, 
forceful  characterization,  and  mental  dignity.  Alvise  Viva- 
rini  (fl.  1461-1503),  a  nephew  of  Bartolommeo,  was  the  latest 
of  this  family,  and  a  rival  of  Giovanni  Bellini  at  Venice.  He 
was  not,  however,  so  strong  a  painter  as  Bellini  though  pos- 
sessed of  keen  artistic  feeling  and  much  technical  skill.  His 
portraits  show  him  to  advantage  and  some  of  his  altar-pieces 
are  excellent  though  lacking  the  full  register  of  Venetian 
color.  He  was,  like  Bellini,  a  famous  teacher  and  the  master 
of  many  pupils.  With  his  death  the  history  of  the  Muranese 
merges  into  the  Venetian  school  proper,  except  as  it  continues 
to  appear  in  some  of  the  pupils  and  followers.  Of  the  latter 
Carlo  Crivelli  (1440?- 1493?)  was  the  only  one  of  much  mark. 
He  apparently  gathered  his  art  from  many  sources  —  orna- 
ment and  color  from  the  Vivarini,  a  lean  and  withered  type 
from  the  early  Paduans  under  Squarcione,  architecture  from 
Mantegna,  and  a  rather  repulsive  sentiment  from  the  same 
school.  His  faces  were  often  contorted  and  sulky,  his  hands 
and  feet  stringy,  his  drawing  rather  harsh;  but  his  sense  of 
form  was  Mantegnesque,  his  decorative  sense  something 
wonderful,  and  his  tragic  power  convincing  and  compelling. 
No  Early  Renaissance  painter  at  Venice  went  beyond  him 
in  excellence  of  workmanship,  in  ornamental  robes,  arabesques, 
gilding;  and  no  Venetian  of  his  time  quite  equalled  him  in 
brilliancy  and  splendor  of  color.     He  is  a  man  to  be  studied. 

Antonello  da  Messina  (i430?-i479)  was  Sicilian  born  and 
comes  into  the  Venetian  school  at  this  time  (1470)  from  no 
one  quite  knows  where.  He  had  a  knowledge  of  Flemish 
methods  probably  derived  from  Flemish  pictures  or  painters 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


97 


in  Italy,  and  introduced  the  use  of  oil  as  a  medium  into  the 
Venetian  school.  His  early  work  was  Flemish  in  character 
and  was  very  accurate,  even  minute.  His  later  work  showed 
the  influence  of  the  Bellini.  His  counter-influence  upon 
Venetian  portraiture  has  never  been  quite  justly  estimated. 
That  fine,  exact,  yet  forceful  work,  of  which  the  Doge  Loredano 


FIG.   43.  —  CARPACCIO.      ST.    URSULA'S  DEPARTURE    (DETAIL) .      VENICE   ACADEMY. 

by  Bellini  in  the  National  Gallery,  London,  is  an  example, 
was  perhaps  brought  about  by  an  amalgamation  of  Flemish 
and  Venetian  methods  and  Antonello  was  perhaps  the  means 
of  bringing  it  about.  He,  himself,  was  a  most  forceful  and 
masterful  painter  of  portraits.  Jacopo  de'  Barbari  (1450- 
15 16),  a  painter  with  a  mixture  of  Northern  and  Venetian 
tendencies,  was  an  imitator  at  one  time  of  Antonello. 

Venetian  painting,  in  its  broader  manifestation,  practically 
dates  from  the  Bellini.     They  did  not  begin  where  the  Vivarini 


98  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

left  off.  The  two  groups  of  painters  seem  to  have  started  at 
nearly  the  same  time  and  worked  along  together  in  a  some- 
what similar  vein  as  regards  the  early  men.  Jacopo  Bellini 
(fl.  1430-1466),  the  founder  of  the  family,  was  a  pupil  of  Gentile 
da  Fabriano  and  Pisanello  and  got  from  Gentile  an  unusual 
view  of  landscape,  as  related  to  the  figure,  afterwards  developed 
by  his  son,  Gentile  Bellini.  There  are  few  of  Jacopo's  works 
left  but  his  sketch-book  survives  and  in  it  one  sees  his  inven- 
tion, his  narrative  style,  and  his  knowledge  of  nature.  Gentile 
Bellini  (fl.  1429-1507)  was  a  pupil  of  his  father  and  an  ex- 
tremely interesting  painter  on  account  of  his  Venetian  themes 
painted  with  open-air  effect  and  shrewd  knowledge  of  light  and 
air.  In  these  open-air  scenes  he  painted  not  figures  with  a 
landscape  background,  but  a  landscape  with  figures  holding 
their  proper  place  as  spots  or  objects  in  the  scene.  His  pic- 
tures of  Venice  (now  in  the  Venice  Academy)  are  remarkable 
for  their  splendor  of  effect,  their  saturation  with  color,  their 
wonderful  detail,  and  sometimes  their  very  fine  portraits. 
In  these  respects  Gentile's  pupil,  Carpaccio  (fl.  1478-15 20), 
was  his  worthy  successor.  His  subjects  were  romantic  and 
chivalric  rather  than  religious,  though  he  painted  a  number  of 
altar-pieces.  The  legend  was  his  delight  and  his  great  success 
as  the  St.  Ursula  and  St.  George  pictures  at  Venice  still  indi- 
cate. He  was  the  best  legend-teller  with  the  paint  brush  in 
Venetian  art.  His  figures  are  delightful  in  their  naive  quality, 
in  their  simplicity,  in  their  candor.  His  architecture,  cos- 
tumes, Oriental  trappings  help  out  the  story  and  at  the  same 
time  furnish  glowing  color;  his  landscapes  give  the  right  set- 
tings and  yet  show  wonderful  knowledge  of  light,  perspective, 
atmosphere.  He  was  not  a  very  good  draftsman  but  the  spirit 
of  his  art  is  so  earnest,  honest,  and  sincere  that  even  the  awk- 
ward bits  of  drawing  that  appear  serve  to  add  to  the  general 
naive  effect.  Bastiani  (i425?-i5i2)  probably  had  some 
early   influence   upon   Carpaccio;    Mansueti   (fl.    1485-1527) 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


99 


was  a  contemporary  of  small  ability  who  followed  Gentile 
Bellini;  and  Bartolommeo  Veneto  was  a  Gentile  follower 
who  produced  a  rather  original  if  odd  portraiture,  showing 
in  it  perhaps  some  northern  influences.  Bartolommeo  Mon- 
tagna,  already  noticed,  was  also  influenced  by  Gentile. 

The  main  branch  of  Venetian  painting  stems  from  the 
youngest  son  of  Jacopo, 
Giovanni  Bellini  (1428?- 
15 16),  the  greatest  of  the 
family  and  the  real 
leader  of  the  early  Vene- 
tian school.  At  first  he 
was  profoundly  religious 
in  feeling,  sharp  in  line, 
hard  in  surface,  follow- 
ing Mantegna.  It  seems 
that  about  the  middle 
of  the  fifteenth  century 
the  Bellini  family  lived 
at  Padua  and  Mantegna 
married  into  it,  taking 
for  wife  the  sister  of 
Giovanni  Bellini.    There         fig.  44.  —  bellini.   madonna  and  saints 

1-  e  (DETAIL).      ACADEMY,    VENICE. 

was  a   mingling   of   art 

as  well  as  of  family.  Mantegna  was  influenced  perhaps  to 
the  acceptance  of  Venetian  color  and  the  Bellini  were  in  turn 
influenced  by  Paduan  drawing.  The  latter  showed  in  Gio- 
vanni Bellini's  early  work  which  was  angular  in  drapery, 
anatomical  in  the  joints,  hands,  feet.  But  he  outgrew  this, 
and  also  much  of  his  religious  feeling,  and  as  the  century  drew 
to  a  close  he  became  more  naturalistic,  more  colorful,  more 
distinctly  Venetian,  so  far  even  as  setting  the  pace  in  his 
S.  Zaccaria  Madonna  for  his  pupils  Giorgione  and  Titian. 
He  never,  however,  quite  attained  the  rank  of  a  High-Renais- 


IOO 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 


sance  painter  though  living  into  the  sixteenth  century.  He 
had  earnestness,  honesty,  simplicity,  character,  force,  skill; 
but  not  the  full  complement  of  painter's  power.  Albrecht 
Diirer  when  visiting  Venice  wrote  back  that  Bellini  was  old 

but  still  the  best  of  them 
all.  The  praise  was  not 
undeserved.  He  went 
beyond  all  his  contem- 
poraries in  technical 
strength  and  color-har- 
mony, and  was  in  fact 
the  epoch-making  man 
of  early  Venice. 

Of  Bellini's  contem- 
poraries and  followers 
there  were  many,  and  as 
a  school  there  was  a 
similarity  of  style,  sub- 
ject, and  color-treatment 
carrying  through  them 
all,  with  individual  pecu- 
liarities in  each  painter. 
In  fact  there  was  so 
much  similarity  of  style 
between  the  works  of 
the  followers  and  those 
of  the  master  that  many 
of  the  followers'  works 
are  still  passing  under  Bellini's  name. 

Cima  da  Conegliano  (i46o?-i5i7?)  was  probably  a  pupil 
of  Alvise  Vivarini,  with,  later  on,  some  Bellini  influence  about 
him.  He  and  his  fellows  were  trammelled  somewhat  by  being 
educated  in  distemper  work,  and  then  midway  in  their  careers 
changing  to  the  oil  medium,  that  medium  having  been  in- 


FIG.   45- 


BASAITI.       SONS   OF   ZEBEDEE.       VENICE 
ACADEMY. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING  jp- 

'    ,   '     , 

troduced  into  Venice  by  Antonello  da  Messina  in  1473.  But 
aside  from  that  none  of  them  reached  up,  mentally  or  techni- 
cally, to  the  master.  Cima's  subjects  were  largely  half-length 
madonnas  or  full  length  figures  of  three  or  four  in  a  group, 
posed  with  some  show  of  sentiment  but  without  dramatic 
action  or  pronounced  passion.  His  types  are  calm,  healthy, 
happy  people,  placed  in  beautiful  landscape,  surrounded  by 
good  air  and  light,  and  reflecting  excellent  color  —  no  more. 
Basaiti  (fl.  1470-15 2 7)  was  another  Vivarini  pupil  who  finally 
turned  to  follow  Bellini.  His  landscape  is  remarkable,  espe- 
cially in  his  Sons  of  Zebedee  picture  at  Venice.  His  figures  lack 
drawing  but  he  compensates  usually  with  good  color.  Catena 
(?-i53i)  had  a  wide  reputation  in  his  day,  but  it  came  more 
from  a  smooth  finish  and  pretty  accessories  than  from  creative 
power.  He  imitated  Bellini's  style  at  first:  but  later  on  fol- 
lowed Giorgione  and  Carpaccio.  A  man  possessed  of  knowl- 
edge, he  seemed  to  have  no  original  propelling  purpose  behind 
him.  That  was  largely  the  make-up  of  the  other  men  of  the 
school.  Previtali  (fl.  1502-15  2 5)  had  grace  of  method,  Pen- 
nacchi  (1464-15 15),  influenced  somewhat  by  Carpaccio,  had 
not  a  little  of  original  force;  Bissolo  (1464-15 28)  was  practi- 
cally an  imitator  of  Bellini  as  was  also  Rondinelli  (1440?- 
1500?).  Diana  (?-i5oo?)  and  Marziale  (fl.  1500)  were  lesser 
lights  of  the  school. 

EXTANT  WORKS:  For  lists  of  the  painters'  works  and  their 
location  consult  Berenson,  Brown  and  Rankin,  and  Crowe  and  CavaU 
caselle  as  before  cited  at  the  end  of  Chapter  V.  The  best  of  the 
Paduan,  Veronese,  and  Venetian  pictures  are  still  to  be  seen  at  Padua, 
Verona,  and  Venice. 


CHAPTER   VIII 
ITALIAN  PAINTING 

THE   HIGH   RENAISSANCE —  15001600 

Books  Recommended:  Those  on  Italian  art  before  men- 
tioned, and  also :  Cox,  Old  Masters  and  New;  Crowe  and  Caval- 
caselle,  Raphael;  Davies,  Michelangelo;  Grimm,  Michael 
Angelo;  Holroyd,  Michael  Angelo;  Muntz,  Raphael;  Oppe, 
Raphael;  Passavant,  Raphael;  Reumont,  Andrea  del  Sarto; 
Reymond,  Michel- Ange;  Springer,  Rafael  und  Michel  Angelo; 
Symonds,  Michael  Angelo;  Taine,  Italy  —  Florence  and 
Venice;  Wolfflin,  Italian  Renaissance. 

THE  HIGHEST  DEVELOPMENT:  The  word  " Renais- 
sance" has  a  broader  meaning  than  its  strict  etymology  would 
imply.  It  was  a  "new  birth,"  but  something  more  than  the 
revival  of  Greek  learning  and  the  study  of  nature  entered  into 
it.  It  was  the  grand  consummation  of  Italian  intelligence  in 
many  departments  —  the  arrival  at  maturity  of  the  Chris- 
tian trained  mind  tempered  by  the  philosophy  of  Greece, 
and  the  knowledge  of  the  actual  world.  Fully  aroused  at 
last,  the  Italian  intellect  became  inquisitive,  inventive,  scien- 
tific, sceptical  —  yes,  mundane,  immoral,  polluted.  It  ques- 
tioned all  things,  doubted  where  it  pleased,  dropped  easily  into 
crime,  corruption,  and  sensuality,  yet  bowed  at  the  shrine  of 
the  beautiful  and  knelt  at  the  altar  of  Christianity.  It  is 
an  illustration  of  the  contradictions  that  may  exist  when  the 
intellectual,  the  religious,  and  the  moral  are  brought  together, 
with  the  wiiellectual  in  predominance. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING  103 

It  was  a  keen  intellect  —  that  of  the  Renaissance  —  and 
made  swift  progress.  It  remodelled  the  philosophy  of  Greece, 
and  used  its  literature  as  a  mould  for  its  own.  It  developed 
Roman  law  and  introduced  modern  science.  The  world 
without  and  the  world  within  were  rediscovered.  Land  and 
sea,  starry  sky  and  planetary  system,  were  fixed  upon  the 
chart.     Man  himself,  the   animals,  the  plants,  organic   and 


FIG.   46.  —  FRA   BARTOLOMMEO.      DEPOSITION.      PITTI,    FLORENCE. 

inorganic  life,  the  small  things  of  the  earth  gave  up  their 
secrets.  Inventions  utilized  all  classes  of  products,  commerce 
flourished,  free  cities  were  builded,  universities  arose,  learning 
spread  itself  on  the  pages  of  newly-invented  books  of  print, 
and,  perhaps,  greatest  of  all,  the  arts  arose  on  strong  wings 
of  life  to  the  very  highest  altitude. 

For  the  aesthetic  side  of  the  Renaissance  intellect  it  had  its 
exalted  tastes  and  refinements,  as  shown  in  the  high  quality 


104  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

of  art;  but  there  were  many  earthly  and  degrading  features 
connected  with  it.  It  was  by  no  means  so  pure,  so  frank,  so 
honest  as  in  the  preceding  period.  Belief  and  religion  were 
visibly  weakening  though  the  ecclesiastical  still  held  strong. 
People  were  forgetting  the  faith  of  the  early  days,  and  taking 
up  with  the  material  things  about  them.  They  were  glorify- 
ing the  human  and  exalting  the  natural.  The  story  of  Greece 
was  being  repeated  in  Italy.  And  out  of  this  new  worship 
of  the  earth  came  jewels  of  rarity  and  beauty,  but  out  of  it 
also  came  faithlessness,  corruption,  vice. 

MOTIVES  AND  METHODS:  Though  the  religious  sub- 
ject still  held  with  the  painters,  this  subject  in  High-Renais- 
sance days  did  not  carry  with  it  the  religious  feeling  as  in 
Gothic  days.  Art  had  grown  to  be  something  more  than  a 
teacher  of  the  Bible.  In  the  painter's  hands  it  had  come  to 
mean  beauty  for  its  own  sake  —  a  picture  beautiful  for  its 
form  and  color,  regardless  of  its  theme.  This  was  the  teach- 
ing of  antique  art,  and  the  study  of  nature  but  increased  the 
belief.  A  new  love  had  arisen  in  the  outer  and  visible  world, 
and  when  the  Church  called  for  altar-pieces  the  painters 
painted  their  new  love,  christened  it  with  a  religious  title, 
and  handed  it  forth  in  the  name  of  the  old.  Thus  art  began 
to  free  itself  from  Church  domination  and  to  live  as  an 
independent  beauty  though  the  Church  still  continued  to 
be  the  chief  patron.  The  general  motive,  then,  of  painting 
during  the  High  Renaissance,  though  apparently  religious 
from  the  subject,  and  in  many  cases  still  religious  in  feeling, 
was  largely  to  show  the  beauty  of  form  or  color,  in  which 
religion  came  in  as  a  qualifying  element. 

In  technical  methods,  though  extensive  work  was  still 
done  in  fresco,  especially  at  Florence  and  Rome,  yet  the  bulk 
of  High-Renaissance  painting  was  in  oils  upon  panel  and 
canvas.  At  Venice  even  the  decorative  wall  paintings  were 
upon    canvas,    afterward   inserted    in    wall   or   ceiling.     The 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


105 


amount  of  work  done  was  enormous  and  the  high  average  of 
skill  displayed  is  astonishing  even  at  this  day.  The  produc- 
tion continued  all  through  the  Renaissance  and  into  the 
Decadence.  Strictly  speaking  the  intellectual  and  literary 
phase  of  the  Renaissance  had  been  completed  before  the  year 
1500,  but  in  the  arts,  so  great  was  the  impetus  and  so  strong 
the  traditions,  that 
painting,  for  example, 
extended  through  the 
sixteenth  century.  Then 
it  began  to  fail  both 
mentally  and  technically. 
THE  FLORENTINES 
AND  ROMANS:  There 
was  a  severity  and  aus- 
terity about  the  Floren- 
tine art,  even  at  its 
climax.  It  was  never  too 
sensuous  and  luxurious, 
but  rather  exact  and 
intellectual.  The  Floren- 
tines were  fond  of  lustre- 
less fresco,  architectural 
composition,  aspiring  or 
sweeping     lines,     rather 

sharp  color  as  compared  with  the  Venetians,  and  theo- 
logical, classical,  even  literary  and  allegorical  subjects.  Prob- 
ably this  was  due  to  the  literary  bias  of  the  painters  derived 
from  the  intellectual  and  social  influences  of  Florence  and 
Rome.  Line  and  composition  were  means  of  expressing 
abstract  thought  better  than  color,  though  some  of  the  Floren- 
tines employed  both  line  and  color  with  knowledge  and  skill. 
As  for  religious  feeling  the  late  Florentine  art  revealed  it  only 
in   sporadic   instances.     There   was   a   traditional   sentiment 


FIG.   47.  —  FRA   PAOLINO.      MADONNA    AND    SAINTS. 
ACADEMY,    FLORENCE. 


io6  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

attached  to  religious  themes  that  still  prevailed,  but  it  was 
often  given  in  a  perfunctory  way  and  became  subservient  to 
the  more  material  beauties  of  form,  color,  and  method. 

This  was  partly  illustrated  in  the  case  of  Fra  Bartolommeo 
(1475-15 1 7),  a  monk  of  San  Marco,  who  was  a  connecting 
link  between  the  fifteenth  and  the  sixteenth  century.  He  was 
a  religionist,  a  follower  of  Savonarola,  who  thought  to  do 
work  of  a  religious  character  and  feeling;  but  he  was  also 
a  painter,  excelling  in  composition,  drawing,  drapery.  The 
painter's  element  in  his  work  —  its  material  and  earthly 
beauty  —  rather  detracted  from  its  spiritual  significance.  He 
opposed  the  sensuous  and  the  nude,  and  yet  about  the 
only  nude  he  ever  painted  —  a  St.  Sebastian  for  San  Marco 
—  had  so  much  of  the  earthly  about  it  that  people  forgot  the 
suffering  saint  in  admiring  the  fine  body,  and  the  picture  had 
to  be  removed  from  the  convent.  In  such  ways  religion  in 
art  was  gradually  undermined,  not  alone  by  naturalism  and 
classicism  but  by  art  itself.  Painting  brought  into  life  by 
religion  no  sooner  reached  maturity  than  it  led  people  away 
from  religion  by  pointing  out  sensuous  beauties  in  the  type 
rather  than  religious  beauties  in  the  symbol. 

Fra  Bartolommeo  was  among  the  last  of  the  pietists  in 
art.  He  had  no  great  imagination,  but  was  possessed  of 
feeling,  dignity,  and  sobriety  of  view.  Naturally  he  was 
influenced  somewhat  by  the  great  ones  about  him,  learn- 
ing perspective  from  Raphael,  grandeur  from  Michelangelo, 
contours  from  Leonardo  da  Vinci,  and  perhaps  a  sense  for 
space  in  landscape  from  Perugino.  He  worked  in  collabora- 
tion with  Albertinelli  (1474-1515),  a  pupil  for  some  time  of 
Cosimo  Rosselli  and  also  of  Piero  di  Cosimo.  Their  work  is 
sometimes  so  much  alike  that  it  is  difficult  to  distinguish 
the  painters  apart.  Albertinelli  occasionally  painted  the 
religious  subject  with  feeling  and  dignity  as  his  Visitation  in 
the  Uffizi  indicates,  but  usually  he  was  trifling  and  at  times 


ITALIAN  PAINTING  107 

bizarre  or  decadent.  Among  the  followers  of  Bartolommeo 
and  Albertinelli  were  Fra  Paolino  (1490-1547)  who  worked 
with  Bartolommeo  and  was  little  more  than  an  echo,  Bugiar- 
dini  (1475-1554),  who  assisted  Albertinelli  and  accepted  sug- 
gestions from  many  sources,  Granacci  (1469-1543),  an  eclectic 


FIG.    48.  —  ANDREA   DEL   SARTO.      MADONNA   DELL'   ARPIE. 
UFFIZI,   FLORENCE. 

devoted  to  what  he  could  find  in  other  painters  and  pro- 
ducing smooth-surfaced  superficial  pictures  of  no  great  im- 
portance, and  Ridolfo  Ghirlandajo  (1483-1561),  a  pupil  of 
Granacci  who  produced  some  rather  fine  portraits. 

Andrea  del  Sarto  (1486-1531)  was  a  Florentine  pure  and 
simple  —  a  painter  for  the  Church,  producing  many  madonnas 


io8  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

and  altar-pieces,  and  yet  possessed  of  little  religious  feeling 
or  depth.  He  was  painter  more  than  pietist,  and  was  called 
by  his  townsmen  "  the  faultless  painter."  So  he  was  as  regards 
the  technical  features  of  his  art.  His  craftsmanship  was  excel- 
lent and  as  draftsman,  brushman,  and  colorist  he  was  unex- 
celled in  Florence.  But  he  seldom  brought  to  those  qualities 
a  noble  mind  or  an  exalted  feeling.  Exceptionally  he  is  great 
as  in  the  splendid  Deposition  in  the  Pitti,  or  dignified  as  in 
the  Annunziata  frescos;  but  usually  he  disappoints  expecta- 
tion. He  was  influenced  by  other  painters  to  some  extent. 
Piero  di  Cosimo  was  his  master,  Michelangelo  his  model  in 
drawing,  Bartolommeo  his  influencer  in  contours  and  dra- 
peries; while  in  warmth  of  color,  brush-work,  atmospheric 
and  landscape  effects  he  was  quite  by  himself.  He  had  a 
large  number  of  pupils  and  followers,  but  most  of  them 
deserted  him  later  on  to  follow  Michelangelo.  Pontormo 
(1404-1556),  who  was  much  influenced  by  Michelangelo,  and 
Franciabigio  (1482-1525),  who  painted  very  good  portraits, 
were  among  the  best  of  them.  The  minor  followers  were 
Rosso  Fiorentino  (1494-1541),  a  painter  of  some  fluency, 
Bacchiacca  (1494?-! 557),  a  painter  with  some  fancy,  but  an 
indifferent  draftsman,  and  Puligo  (1475-1527),  a  rather  tame 
painter  of  Andrea's  madonna  type. 

Michelangelo  (1 474-1 564)  has  been  called  the  "Prophet 
of  the  Renaissance,"  and  perhaps  deserves  the  title,  since 
he  was  more  of  the  Old  Testament  than  the  New  —  more 
of  the  austere  and  imperious  than  the  loving  or  the  forgiv- 
ing. There  was  no  sentimental  feature  about  his  art.  His 
conception  was  intellectual,  highly  imaginative,  mysterious, 
at  times  disordered  and  turbulent  in  its  strength.  He  came 
the  nearest  to  the  sublime  of  any  painter  in  history  through 
the  sole  attribute  of  power.  He  had  no  tenderness  nor  any 
winning  charm.  He  did  not  win,  but  rather  commanded. 
Everything  he  saw  or  felt  was  studied  for  the  strength  that 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


109 


wiis_in~jt.  Religion,  Old-Testament  history,  the  antique, 
humanity,  all  turned  in  his  hands  into  symbolic  forms  of 
power,  put  forth  with  intensity,  and  at  times  in  defiance 
of  every  rule  and  tradition  of  art.  Personal  feeling  was 
very  apparent  in  his  work,  and   in   this  he  was  as  far  re- 


FIG.  4g. — MICHELANGELO.       DELPHIC  SIBYL.      SISTINE   CHAPEL,  ROME. 

moved  as  possible  from  the  Greeks,  and  nearer  to  what  one 
would  call  to-day  a  romanticist.  There  was  little  of  the  objec- 
tive about  him.  He  was  not  an  imitator  of  facts  but  a  creator 
of  forms  and  ideas.  His  art  was  a  reflection  of  himself  — a 
self-sufficient  man,  positive,  creative,  standing  alone,  a  law 
unto   himself. 

Technically  he  was  more  of  a  sculptor  than  a  painter.     He 
said  so  himself  when  Julius  II  commanded  him  to  paint  the 


no  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

Sistine  ceiling,  and  he  told  the  truth.  He  was  a  magnificent 
draftsman,  and  drew  magnificent  sculpturesque  figures  on 
the  Sistine  vault.  That  was  about  all  his  achievement 
with  the  brush.  In  color,  light,  air,  perspective  —  in  all 
those  features  peculiar  to  the  painter  —  he  was  behind  his 
contemporaries.  Composition  he  knew  a  great  deal  about 
but  in  a  sculpturesque  rather  than  a  picturesque  way.  He 
could  handle  the  single  figure  much  better  than  the  group.  In 
drawing  he  had  the  most  positive,  far-reaching  command  of 
line  of  any  painter  of  any  time.  It  was  in  drawing  that  he 
showed  his  power.  Even  this  is  severe  and  harsh  at  times, 
and  then  again  filled  with  a  grace  that  is  majestic  and  in  scope 
universal,  as  witness  the  Creation  of  Adam  in  the  Sistine. 

He  came  out  of  Florence,  a  pupil  of  Ghirlandajo,  with  a 
school  feeling  for  line  stimulated  by  the  frescos  of  Masaccio 
and  Signorelli.  He  inherited  the  tradition  of  Giotto  in  his 
sense  of  form  but  vastly  improved  it  by  comprehensive  and 
expressive  outline,  and  a  sculptural  modelling  of  great  positive- 
ness.  At  an  early  age  he  declared  himself,  and  hewed  a  path 
of  his  own  through  art,  sweeping  along  with  him  many  of  the 
slighter  painters  of  his  age.  Long-lived  he  saw  his  contem- 
poraries die  about  him  and  Humanism  end  in  violence;  but 
alone,  gloomy,  resolute,  steadfast  to  his  belief,  he  held  his  way, 
the  last  great  representative  of  Florentine  art,  the  first  great 
representative  of  individualism  in  art.  With  him  and  after 
him  came  many  followers  who  strove  to  imitate  his  "terrible 
style,"  but  they  did  not  succeed  any  too  well. 

The  most  of  these  followers  find  classification  under  the 
Mannerists  of  the  Decadence.  Of  those  who  were  assistants 
of  Michelangelo,  or  carried  out  his  designs,  Daniele  da  Volterra 
(i 509-1 566)  was  one  of  the  most  satisfactory.  His  chief 
work,  the  Descent  from  the  Cross,  was  considered  by  Poussin 
as  one  of  the  three  great  pictures  of  the  world.  It  is  some- 
times said  to  have  been  designed  by  Michelangelo,  but  that 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


ill 


is  only  a  conjecture.  It  has  much  action  and  life  in  it,  but  is 
somewhat  affected  in  pose  and  gesture,  and  Daniele's  work 
generally  was  deficient  in  real  energy  of  conception  and  exe- 


FIG.    SO.  —  RAPHAEL.      DISPUTA    (DETAIL).      VATICAN,   ROME. 

cution.  Marcello  Venusti  (15 15-1585?)  painted  directly 
from  Michelangelo's  designs  in  a  delicate  and  precise  way. 
Raphael  Sanzio  (1483-1520)  was  the  very  opposite  of  Michel- 
angelo. The  art  of  the  latter  was  an  expression  of  individual 
power  and  was  purely  subjective.  Raphael's  art  was  largely  a 
unity  of  objective  beauties,  with  the  personal  element  as  much 


112  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

in  abeyance  as  was  possible  for  his  time.  He  aimed  at  the 
ideal  and  the  universal,  independent,  so  far  as  possible,  of  the 
individual  and  sought  by  the  union  of  many  elements  to 
produce  perfect  harmony.  He  had  a  genius  for  assimila- 
tion and  recombination  that  was  something  more  than  eclec- 
ticism. He  could  receive,  rearrange,  and  then  give  out 
again  with  astonishing  originality.  From  the  first  his  educa- 
tion was  a  cultivation  of  every  grace  of  mind  and  hand.  He 
absorbed  freely  whatever  he  found  to  be  good  in  the  art  about 
him.  A  pupil  of  Timoteo  and  Perugino,  he  levied  upon 
features  of  excellence  in  Masaccio,  Fra  Bartolommeo,  Leo- 
nardo, Michelangelo.  From  the  first  he  got  tenderness,  from 
the  second  drawing,  from  the  third  color  and  composition, 
from  the  fourth  charm,  from  the  fifth  force.  Like  a  Periclean 
Greek  he  drew  from  all  sources,  and  then  blended  and  united 
these  features  in  a  peculiar  style  of  his  own  and  stamped  them 
with  his  peculiar  Raphaelesque  stamp.  At  first  he  reflected 
Perugino's  types  and  sentiment,  then  he  broadened  under  the 
influence  of  Leonardo,  and  finally  he  accepted  the  powerful 
modelling  and  forms  of  Michelangelo,  perhaps  to  the  detri- 
ment of  his  art.  His  latter  work  shows  the  establishment  of  an 
academic  manner  which  eventually  ended  in  a  mannerism. 

In  subject  Raphael  produced  religious  and  mythological 
themes  but  he  was  imbued  with  neither  of  these  so  far  as  the 
initial  spirit  was  concerned.  He  looked  at  all  subjects  in  a 
calm,  intellectual,  artistic  way.  Even  the  celebrated  Sistine 
Madonna  is  more  intellectual  than  pietistic  and  the  Vatican 
Stanze,  almost  from  beginning  to  end,  are  learned  rather  than 
emotional.  He  did  not  feel  keenly  or  execute  passionately 
—  at  least  there  is  no  strong  indication  of  it  in  the  work. 
The  doing  so  would  have  destroyed  unity,  symmetry,  repose. 
The  theme  was  ever  held  in  check  by  a  regard  for  proportion 
and  rhythm.  To  keep  all  artistic  elements  in  perfect  equilib- 
rium, allowing  no  one  to  predominate,  seemed  the  mainspring 


ITALIAN  PAINTING  113 

of  his  action.     By  this  method  he  created  that  harmony  which 
his  admirers  sometimes  refer  to  as  pure  or  formal  beauty. 

For  his  period  and  school  he  was  remarkable  technically. 
He  excelled  in  everything  except  brush-work,  which  was  not 
brought  to  the  highest  maturity  in  either  Florence  or  Rome. 
Even  in  color  he  was  excellent  for  Florence,  though  not  equal 


FIG.    51.  —  RAPHAEL.      LEO   X.    (DETAIL).      PITTI,   FLORENCE. 

to  the  Venetians.  In  composition,  space-filling,  pattern  mak- 
ing, he  was  a  man  of  the  very  highest  accomplishment  while 
in  line,  modelling,  even  in  texture  painting  (see  his  portraits) 
he  was  something  of  a  wonder  and  a  marvel.  In  these  features, 
as  in  grace,  purity,  serenity,  loftiness,  he  was  the  Florentine 
leader  easily  first. 


ii4  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

The  influence  of  Raphael's  example  was  largely  felt  through- 
out Umbria,  Florence,  Rome,  and  Northern  Italy.  He  had 
many  imitators  and  followers,  who  tried  to  produce  Raphael- 
esque  qualities.  Their  efforts  usually  resulted  in  grandiose 
effects  or  sweet  sentimentality.  Francesco  Penni  (1488?- 
1528)  seems  to  have  been  content  to  work  under  Raphael 
with  some  ability.  Giulio  Romano  (1492-1546)  was  the 
strongest  of  the  pupils,  and  became  the  founder  and  leader  of 
the  Roman  school,  which  had  considerable  influence  upon  the 
painters  of  the  Decadence.  He  tried  to  adopt  Raphael's  style, 
but  was  not  completely  successful  in  doing  so.  Raphael's 
refinement  in  Giulio's  hands  became  exaggerated  coarse- 
ness. He  was  a  good  draftsman,  but  rather  violent  as  a 
colorist,  and  a  composer  of  restless,  and,  at  times,  contorted 
groups.  He  was  a  prolific  painter,  but  his  work  tended  toward 
the  baroque  style,  and  had  an  unhappy  influence  on  the  suc- 
ceeding schools. 

Primaticcio  (1504-15 70)  was  one  of  Giulio's  followers,  and 
had  to  do  with  the  founding  of  the  school  of  Fontainebleau 
in  France.  Giovanni  da  Udine  (1487-1564),  a  Venetian 
trained  painter,  became  a  follower  and  assistant  of  Raphael, 
his  only  originality  showing  in  decorative  designs.  Perino 
del  Vaga  (1 500-1 547)  was  of  a  similar  cast  of  mind.  Andrea 
Sabbatini  (i48o?-i545)  carried  Raphael's  types  and  methods 
to  the  south  of  Italy,  and  some  artists  at  Bologna,  and  in 
Umbria,  like  Innocenzo  da  Imola  (1404-1550?),  adopted  the 
Raphael  type  and  method  to  the  detriment  of  what  native 
talent  they  may  have  possessed. 

EXTANT  WORKS:  For  lists  of  the  painters'  works  and  their 
location  consult  Bcrcnson,  Brown  and  Rankin,  and  Crowe  and  Caval- 
casclle  as  before  cited  at  the  end  of  Chapter  V.  Andrea  del  Sarto  is 
seen  at  his  best  in  his  Annunziata  frescos,  Michelangelo  only  in  the 
Sistine  Chapel  in  Rome,  and  Raphael  is,  again,  at  his  best  in  the 
Stanze  of  the  Vatican. 


CHAPTER   IX 
ITALIAN  PAINTING 

THE   HIGH   RENAISSANCE,    1500-1600.  —  CONTINUED 

Books  Recommended:  The  works  on  Italian  art  before 
mentioned,  consult  the  General  Bibliography  and  also:  Cust, 
Giovanni  Antonio  Bazzi;  Gardner,  Painters  of  the  School  of 
Ferrara;  Gauthiez,  Luini  (Les  Grandes  Artistes);  Gronau, 
Correggio;  Leonardo  da  Vinci;  Halsey,  Gaudenzio  Ferrari; 
Home  and  Cust,  Leonardo  da  Vinci;  Meyer,  Correggio;  Moore, 
Correggio;  Muntz,  Leonardo  da  Vinci;  Pater,  Studies  in  the  His- 
tory of  the  Renaissance;  Ricci,  Correggio;  Richter,  Leonardo 
da  Vinci;  Thiis,  Leonardo  da  Vinci;  Williamson,  Luini. 

LEONARDO     DA     VINCI      AND      THE      MILANESE:     The 

third  person  in  the  great  Florentine  trinity  of  painters  was 
Leonardo  da  Vinci  (145  2-1 5 19),  the  other  two  being  Michel- 
angelo and  Raphael.  He  greatly  influenced  the  school  of 
Milan,  and  has  usually  been  classed  with  the  Milanese,  yet 
he  was  educated  in  Florence,  in  the  workshop  of  Verrocchio, 
and  was  so  universal  in  thought  and  methods  that  he  hardly 
belongs  to  any  school. 

He  has  been  called  a  realist,  an  idealist,  a  magician,  a 
wizard,  a  dreamer,  and  finally  a  scientist,  by  different 
writers,  yet  he  was  none  of  these  things  while  being  all  of 
them  —  a  full-rounded  man,  learned  in  many  departments 
and  excelling  in  almost  everything  he  undertook.  He  had  the 
scientific  and  experimental  way  of  working  at  things.  That 
is  perhaps  to  be  regretted,  since  it  resulted  in  his  experiment- 
ing with  everything  and  completing  little  of  anything.  His 
different  tastes  and  pursuits  pulled  him  different  ways,  and 


n6 


HISTORY  OF  •PAINTING 


his  knowledge  made  him  sceptical  of  his  own  powers.  He 
pondered  and  thought  how  to  reach  up  higher,  how  to 
penetrate  deeper,  how  to  realize  more  comprehensively,  and 
in  the  end  he  gave  up  in  despair.  He  could  not  fulfil  his 
ideal  of  the  head  of  Christ  nor  the  head  of  Mona  Lisa,   and 

after  years  of  labor  he 
left  them  (so  he  said) 
unfinished.  The  problem 
of  human  life,  the  spirit, 
the  world  engrossed 
him,  and  all  his  crea- 
tions seem  impregnated 
with  the  psychological, 
the  mystical,  the  unat- 
tainable, the  hidden. 

He  was  no  religionist, 
though  painting  the  re- 
ligious subject  with  feel- 
ing; he  was  not  in  any 
sense  a  classicist,  nor 
had  he  any  care  for  the 
antique  marbles,  which 
he  considered  a  study 
of  nature  at  second- 
hand.    He  was  more  in 

FIG.  52.  —  LEONARDO    DA    VINCI.       MONA    LISA.      LOUVRE.  .  . 

love  with  physical  hie, 
and  his  regard  for  contours,  rhythm  of  line,  blend  of  light 
with  shade,  study  of  atmosphere,  perspective,  trees,  rocks, 
animals,  humanity,  show  that  though  he  examined  nature 
scientifically,  he  pictured  it  aesthetically.  In  his  types  there 
is  much  sweetness  of  soul,  charm  of  spirit,  dignity  of  mien, 
even  grandeur  and  majesty  of  presence.  His  people  are 
full  of  life,  intelligence,  sympathy;  they  have  fascination  of 
manner,  winsomeness  of  mood,  grace  of  bearing.     We  see  this 


ITALIAN  PAINTING  117 

in  his  best-known  work  —  the  Mona  Lisa  of  the  Louvre. 
It  has  much  allurement  of  personal  presence,  with  a  depth 
and  abundance  of  soul  altogether  charming. 

Technically,  Leonardo  knew  all  the  methods  and  mediums 
of  his  time,  and  did  much  to  establish  oil-painting  among  the 
Florentines,  besides  perfecting  the  study  of  light-and-shade, 
developing  drawing,  contours  and  modelling,  and  giving  a  new 


FIG.    53.  —  LUINI.      MADONNA   OF   ROSE   TRELLIS.      BRERA,   MJLAN. 

meaning  to  air,  light,  and  landscape.  In  addition  he  was  a 
man  of  invention,  imagination,  grace,  elegance,  and  power, 
and  perhaps  carried  further  by  mental  penetration  and 
aesthetic  sense  than  by  his  technical  skill.  Leonardo  was  a 
mind  even  more  than  a  hand  —  a  sensitive  and  responsive 
spirit  even  more  than  a  scientific  craftsman.  For  that  he  is 
accounted  one  of  the  great  men  of  the  Renaissance,  and 
deservedly  holds  a  place  in  the  front  rank. 


n8 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 


MILANESE  SCHOOL:  Though  Leonardo's  accomplish- 
ment seems  slight  because  of  the  little  that  is  left  to  us,  yet 
he  had  a  great  following  not  only  among  the  Florentines  such 
as  Piero  di  Cosimo,  Fra  Bartolommeo,  and  Raphael  but  at 
Milan,  where  Vincenza  Foppa  had  started  a  school  in  the  Early 
Renaissance  time.     Leonardo  was  at  Milan  for  fourteen  years, 


FIG.  54.  —  SOLARIO.   MADONNA  OF  GREEN  CUSHION.   LOUVRE. 


and  his  artistic  personality  influenced  many  painters  to  adopt 
his  type  and  methods.  Bernardino  Luini  (i475?-i53i)  was 
the  most  prominent  of  the  disciples  though  originally 
a  pupil  of  Borgognone.  He  cultivated  Leonardo's  senti- 
ment, style,  subjects,  and  composition  in  his  middle  period, 
but  later  on  developed  some  independence  and  originality. 
He  came  at  a  period  of  art  when  that  earnestness  of  character- 


ITALIAN  PAINTING  1 19 

ization  which  marked  the  early  men  was  giving  way  to  grace- 
fulness of  recitation,  and  that  was  the  chief  feature  of  his 
art.  For  that  matter  gracefulness  and  pathetic  sweetness  of 
mood,  with  warmth  of  color,  characterized  all  the  Milanese 
painters. 

The  more  prominent  lights  of  the  school  were  Boltraffio 
(146 7-1 5 1 6),  a  painter  of  limitations  but  of  much  refinement 
and  purity  who  in  some  of  his  groups,  as  in  his  portraits,  treads 
closely  upon  Leonardo's  heels,  Ambrogio  da  Predis  (fl.  1482- 
1506)  who  was  influenced  by  Leonardo,  and  was  usually  direct 
and  frank  in  his  portraits  but  a  little  hard  in  line  and  wooden 
in  surface,  and  Marco  d'  Oggiono  (1470?-! 530),  an  assistant 
and  follower  of  some  merit.  Solario  (fl.  1493-1515?)  probably 
became  acquainted  early  with  the  Venetian  mode  of  working 
practised  by  Alvise  Vivarini,  but  he  afterward  came  under 
Leonardo's  spell  at  Milan.  He  was  a  careful  painter,  pos- 
sessed of  feeling  and  tenderness,  producing  pictures  with 
enamelled  surfaces  and  considerable  detail.  His  portraits 
are  the  best  part  of  his  work  and  are  often  excellent  in  their 
sturdy  simplicity.  Gianpietrino  (fl.  15 20-1 540)  and  Cesare 
da  Sesto  (1477-1523)  were  also  of  the  Milanese  school,  the 
latter  afterward  falling  under  the  Raphael  influence.  Ber- 
nardino de'  Conti  (fl.  1490-15 2 2)  produced  some  hard  profiles 
with  considerable  individuality  about  them  and  some  Madonna 
pieces  closely  resembling  those  of  Leonardo.  Francesco  Melzi 
and  Salaino  we  know  little  about  though  there  is  a  picture 
at  Berlin  and  another  at  Petrograd  by  Melzi  that  show 
the  Leonardo  type  somewhat  sweetened  and  prettified.  Gau- 
denzio  Ferrara  (1470?-! 546?),  a  brilliant  colorist  and  a  painter 
of  some  distinction,  was  under  Leonardo's  influence  at  one 
time,  and  with  the  teachings  of  that  master  he  mingled  a  little 
of  Raphael  in  the  type  of  face.  He  was  an  uneven  painter, 
often  excessive  in  sentiment,  but  at  his  best  one  of  the  most 
charming    of    the   Leonardo    followers.     Defendente    Ferrari 


120 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 


(fl.  1510-1535)  and  Macrino  d'Alba  (1470-1528)  were  painters 
of  note  in  the  Lombardy  region  receiving  impulses,  perhaps, 
from  many  sources  —  among  them  Leonardo. 


FIG.    55.  —  SODOMA.      ECSTASY   OF   ST.   CATHF.RINE.      SIENA. 

SODOMA  AND  THE  SIENESE:  Siena,  alive  in  the  four- 
teenth century  to  the  stirring  in  art,  in  the  fifteenth  century 
was  in  almost  complete  eclipse,  no  painters  of  importance 
emanating  from  or  being  established  there.  In  the  sixteenth 
century  there  was   a  revival   of   art  because   of  a   northern 


ITALIAN  PAINTING  12 1 

painter  settling  there  and  building  up  a  new  school.  This 
painter  was  Sodoma  (1477?-!  549).  He  was  one  of  the  fol- 
lowers of  Leonardo  da  Vinci,  a  competent  painter  of  the  single 
figure,  handling  it  with  grace  and  charm  of  expression,  but  not 
so  successful  with  groups  or  studied  compositions,  wherein 
he  was  inclined  to  huddle  and  overcrowd  space.  His  best 
work  was  done  in  fresco,  though  he  did  some  easel  pictures 
that  have  darkened  much  through  time.  He  was  afterward 
led  off  by  the  brilliant  success  of  Raphael,  and  adopted  some- 
thing of  that  master's  style.  His  portrait  appears  beside 
Raphael's  in  the  latter  painter's  celebrated  School  of  Athens. 
The  late  painters  of  the  Sienese  School  were  not  men  of  great 
strength.  Bernardino  Fungai  (1460-15 16),  with  a  sense  for 
refined  color,  Girolamo  Genga  (1476-155 1)  and  Peruzzi 
(1481-1537),  both  showing  some  Pinturicchio  following  mixed 
with  other  influences,  Pacchiarotta  (1474-1540),  Girolamo 
della  Pacchia  (1477-1535),  and  Beccafumi  (1485-1551)  were 
the  principal  lights.     The  influence  of  the  school  was  slight. 

FERRARESE  AND  BOLOGNESE  SCHOOLS:  The  painters 
of  these  schools  during  the  sixteenth  century  have 
usually  been  classed  among  the  followers  and  imitators  of 
Raphael,  but  not  without  some  injustice.  The  influence  of 
Raphael  was  great  throughout  Central  Italy,  and  the  Ferrarese 
and  Bolognese  felt  it,  but  not  to  the  extinction  of  their  native 
thought  and  methods.  Moreover,  there  was  some  influence 
in  color  coming  from  the  Venetian  school,  but  again  not 
to  the  extinction  of  Ferrarese  individuality.  Dosso  Dossi 
( 1 479-1 542),  at  Ferrara,  a  pupil  of  Lorenzo  Costa,  was  the 
chief  painter  of  the  time,  and  he  showed  more  of  Giorgione 
in  color  and  light-and-shade  than  any  one  else,  yet  he  never 
abandoned  the  yellows,  greens,  and  reds  peculiar  to  Ferrara, 
and  he  always  possessed  decided  individuality  and  imagina- 
tion. He  was  a  man  of  distinction  even  though  at  times 
fantastic    and    bordering    on    the   bizarre.     Garofalo    (14S1- 


122 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 


1559)  was  a  pupil  of  Panetti  and  Dosso,  who  made  several 
visits  to  Rome  and  there  fell  in  love  with  Raphael's  work, 
which  showed  in  a  fondness  for  the  flow  of  line,  in  the  type  of 

face  adopted,  and  in  the 
grouping  of  his  many 
easel  pictures.  He  was 
not  so  forceful  a  painter 
as  Dosso,  and  in  addi- 
tion he  had  certain  man- 
nerisms or  earmarks, 
such  as  sootiness  in  his 
flesh  tints  and  bright- 
ness in  his  yellows  and 
greens,  with  dulness  in 
his  reds.  Both  he  and 
Garofalo  were  original 
in  their  striking  back- 
ground landscapes.  So 
also  was  Ortolano,  a 
master  confused  with 
Garofalo  but  a  decidedly 
stronger,  less  affected 
painter.  Mazzolino 
(i47S?-i528?)  was  an- 
other of  the  school,  prob- 
ably a  pupil  of  Ercole 
Roberti  influenced  by 
Costa.  He  was  an  elab- 
orate painter,  fond  of 
architectural  backgrounds  and  glowing  colors  sometimes  en- 
livened with  gold  in  the  high  lights.  Ramenghi  (1484-1542) 
was  a  pupil  of  Francia  at  Bologna,  but  with  much  of  Dosso 
and  Ferrara  about  him.  He,  in  common  with  Innocenzo  da 
Imola,  already  mentioned,  was  indebted  to  the  art  of  Raphael. 


FIC.    56.  —  DOSSI.     ST.  SEBASTIAN.     BRERA,  MILAN. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING  123 

CORREGGIO  AT  PARMA:  In  Correggio  (i494?-i 534)  all 
the  Boccaccio  nature  of  the  Renaissance  came  to  the  surface. 
This  love  of  the  purely  natural  was  indicated  in  Andrea  del 
Sarto  but  Correggio  was  the  consummation.  He  was  the 
painter  with  whom  the  beauty  of  the  human  as  distinguished 
from  the  religious  and  the  classic  showed  at  its  very  strongest. 
Smiling  madonnas,  raving  nymphs,  excited  children  of  the 
wood,  and  angels  of  the  sky  pass  and  repass  through  his 
pictures  in  an  atmosphere  of  pure  sensuousness.  They 
appeal  to  us  not  religiously,  not  historically,  not  intellectu- 
ally, but  sensuously  and  artistically  through  their  rhyth- 
mic lines,  their  palpitating  flesh,  their  beauty  of  color,  and  in 
the  light  and  atmosphere  that  surround  them.  He  was  less 
of  a  religionist  than  Andrea  del  Sarto.  Religion  in  art  was 
losing  ground  in  his  day,  and  the  liberality  and  worldliness 
of  its  teachers  appeared  clearly  enough  in  the  decorations  of 
the  Convent  of  St.  Paul  at  Parma,  where  Correggio  was  allowed 
to  paint  mythological  Dianas  and  Cupids  in  the  place  of 
saints  and  madonnas.  True  enough,  he  painted  the  religious 
subject  very  often,  but  with  the  same  spirit  of  life  and  joyous- 
ness  as  profane  subjects. 

The  classic  subject  seemed  more  appropriate  to  his  spirit, 
and  yet  he  knew  and  probably  cared  less  about  it  than  the 
religious  subject.  His  Danaes  and  Ledas  are  only  so  in  name. 
They  have  little  of  the  Hellenic  spirit  about  them,  and  for  the 
sterner,  heroic  phases  of  classicism  —  the  lofty,  the  grand  — 
Correggio  never  essayed  them.  The  things  of  this  earth  and 
the  sweetness  thereof  seemed  ever  his  aim.  Women  and 
children  were  beautiful  to  him  in  the  same  way  that  flowers 
and  trees  and  skies  and  sunsets  are  beautiful.  They  were 
revelations  of  grace,  charm,  movement,  light,  shade,  color. 
Simply  to  exist  and  be  glad  in  the  sunlight  was  sweetness  to 
Correggio.  He  would  have  no  Sibylesque  mystery,  no  pro- 
phetic austerity,  no  solemnity,  no  great  intellectuality.     He 


124 


HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 


was  not  a  leader  of  a  tragic  chorus.  The  dramatic,  the  force- 
ful, the  powerful,  were  foreign  to  his  mood.  He  was  a  singer 
of  lyrics  and  pastorals,  a  lover  of  the  material  beauty  about 


FIG.    57.  —  CORREGGIO.      HOLY  NIGHT.      DRESDEN   GALLERY. 

him,  and  it  is  because  he  passed  by  the  pietistic,  the  classic, 
the  literary,  and  showed  the  beauty  of  physical  life  as  an 
art-motive  that  he  is  sometimes  called  the  Faun  of  the  Renais- 
sance.    The  appellation  is  not  inappropriate. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


125 


How  or  why  he  came  to  take  this  course  would  be  hard  to 
determine.  It  was  reflective  of  the  times;  but  Correggio,  so 
far  as  history  tells  us,  had  little  to  do  with  the  movements  and 
people  of  his  age.  He  was  born  and  lived  and  died  near  Parma, 
and  is  sometimes  classed  among  the  Bologna-Ferrara  painters, 
but  the  reasons  for  the 
classification  are  not  too 
strong.  His  education, 
masters,  and  influences 
are  all  shadowy  and  in- 
definite. He  seems,  from 
his  drawing  and  com- 
position, to  have  known 
something  of  Mantegna 
at  Mantua;  from  his 
coloring  something  of 
Dosso  and  Garofalo,  es- 
pecially in  his  straw- 
yellows;  from  his  early 
types  and  faces  some- 
thing of  Costa  and 
Francia,  and  his  con- 
tours and  light-and- 
shade  indicate  a  knowl- 
edge of  Leonardo's  work. 
But  there  is  no  posi- 
tive certainty   about  his  masters   or  his   influencers. 

His  drawing  was  faulty  at  times,  but  not  obtrusively  so; 
his  color  and  brush-work  rich,  vivacious,  spirited;  his  light 
brilliant,  warm,  penetrating;  his  contours  melting,  graceful; 
his  atmosphere  omnipresent,  enveloping.  In  composition  he 
rather  pushed  aside  line  in  favor  of  light  and  color.  It  was 
his  technical  peculiarity  that  he  centralized  his  light  and 
surrounded  it  by  darks  as  a  foil.     And  in  this  very  feature  he 


FIG.    58.  —  CORREGGIO    (COPY).     ANGEL.      UFFIZI, 
FLORENCE. 


126  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

was  one  of  the  first  men  in  Renaissance  Italy  to  paint  a  picture 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  a  scheme  of  lights  and  darks  under- 
lying a  tapestry  of  rich  colors.  That  is  art  for  art's  sake, 
and  that,  as  will  be  seen  further  on,  was  the  picture  motive 
of  the  great  Venetians.  Eventually  it  led  to  the  Decadence, 
and  there  is  a  decided  feeling  of  the  coming  affectation  in  some 
of  Correggio's  work,  but  it  usually  stops  short  of  actual 
participation. 

Correggio's  immediate  pupils  and  followers,  like  those  of 
Raphael  and  Andrea  del  Sarto,  did  him  small  honor.  As 
was  usually  the  case  in  Renaissance  art-history  they  caught 
at  the  method  and  lost  the  spirit  of  the  master.  His  son, 
Pomponio  Allegri  (15 21-1593?),  was  a  painter  of  some  mark 
without  being  in  the  front  rank.  Michelangelo  Anselmi  (1491- 
1554?)  was  an  indifferent  imitator  of  Correggio,  and  perhaps 
his  assistant.  Parmigianino  (1 504-1 540),  a  mannered  painter 
of  some  brilliancy,  and  of  excellence  in  portraits,  was  perhaps 
the  best  of  the  immediate  followers  though  bordering  on  the 
bizarre  and  following  Raphael  to  his  detriment.  It  was  not 
until  after  Correggio's  death,  and  with  the  painters  of  the 
Decadence,  notably  the  Carracci  at  Bologna,  that  his  wTork 
was  seriously  taken  up  and  followed. 

EXTANT  WORKS:  For  lists  of  the  painters'  works  and  their 
location  consult  Berenson,  Brown  and  Rankin,  and  Crowe  and  Caval- 
caselle  as  before  cited  at  the  end  of  Chapter  V.  Leonardo  da  Vinci 
is  seen  in  the  Louvre  and  the  Uffizi.  His  pupils  are  best  shown  in 
the  Brera,  Milan.  Correggio  cannot  be  studied  adequately  outside 
of   Parma. 


CHAPTER    X 
ITALIAN  PAINTING 

THE   HIGH   RENAISSANCE,       150O-1600.  —  CONTINUED 

Books  Recommended:  The  works  on  Italian  art  before 
mentioned,  consult  General  Bibliography,  and  also;  Berenson, 
Lorenzo  Lotto;  Boschini,  Le  ricche  miner e  delta  pittura  Vene- 
ziana;  Cook,  Giorgione;  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle,  Titian; 
Fry,  Paolo  Veronese;  Gronau,  Titian;  Hamel,  Titian;  Justi, 
Giorgione;  Phillips,  Titian;  Phillipps,  Tintoretto;  Ricketts, 
Titian;  Thode,  Tintoretto;  Venturi,  Giorgione  e  il  Gior- 
gionismo;  Williamson  (Ed.),  The  Anonimo. 

THE  VENETIAN  SCHOOL:  It  was  at  Venice  and  with  the 
Venetian  painters  of  the  sixteenth  century  that  a  new  art- 
motive  was  finally  and  fully  adopted.  This  art-motive  was 
not  religion.  For  though  the  religious  subject  was  still  largely 
used,  the  religious  or  pietistic  impulse  of,  say,  Fra  Angelico, 
was  not  with  the  Venetians  any  more  than  with  Correggio. 
It  was  not  a  classic,  antique,  realistic,  or  naturalistic  motive, 
though  the  Venetians  were  interested  in  all  of  these  manifesta- 
tions even  down  to  late  Renaissance  times.  What  they  pri- 
marily sought  was  decorative  effect  in  form,  color,  light  — 
mere  sensuous  and  pictorial  effect  in  which  religion  and  classi- 
cism played  secondary  parts.  They  believed  in  art  for  art's 
sake;  that  painting  was  a  creation,  not  an  illustration;  that 
it  should  exist  for  its  pictorial  and  decorative  beauties,  not  for 
its  subject  or  story.  No  matter  what  their  subjects,  they 
invariably  painted  them  so  as  to  show  the  beauties  they  prized 
the  highest.     And  no  matter  what  the  conception  it  appealed 


128  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

primarily  to  the  eye  and  was  a  beauty  to  be  seen  rather  than 
imagined.  The  delicate  contours  of  a  form,  the  flow  and  fall 
of  silk,  the  richness  of  a  brocade,  a  scheme  of  color  or  light, 
the  character  of  a  face,  the  majesty  of  a  figure  were  often 
dominant  and  controlling  features.  And  this  was  not  a  slight 
or  unworthy  conception.  True  it  dealt  wTith  the  fulness  of 
material  life,  with  Venetian  life,  but  regarded  as  this  was  by 
the  Venetians  —  a  thing  full-rounded,  complete,  harmonious, 
splendid  —  it  became  a  great  ideal  of  existence  which  painting 
alone  of  all  the  arts  could,  perhaps,  adequately  set  forth. 

In  technical  expression  color  was  the  note  of  all  the  painters 
of  the  school,  with  hardly  an  exception.  This  in  itself  would 
seem  to  imply  a  lightness  of  spirit,  for  color  is  somehow  asso- 
ciated in  the  popular  mind  with  decorative  gayety;  but 
nothing  could  be  further  removed  from  the  Venetian  school 
than  triviality.  Color  was  taken  up  with  the  greatest  serious- 
ness, and  handled  in  such  masses  and  with  such  dignified 
power  that  while  it  pleased,  it  also  awed  the  spectator.  With- 
out having  quite  the  severity  of  line,  some  of  the  Venetian 
chromatic  schemes  rise  in  sublimity  almost  to  the  Sistine 
modellings  of  Michelangelo.  We  do  not  feel  these  awe-inspir- 
ing harmonies  of  color  in  the  Bellini  and  their  contemporaries 
because  they  came  too  early  for  the  full  splendor,  but  their 
pupils  and  followers  completed  what  the  earlier  men  had  so 
well  suggested. 

THE  GREAT  VENETIANS :  The  most  positive  in  influence 
upon  his  contemporaries  of  all  the  great  Venetians  was  Bellini's 
pupil,  Giorgione  (1478?-! 510).  He  died  young,  and  what 
few  pictures  by  him  are  left  to  us  have  been  so  torn  to  pieces 
by  modern  criticism  that  at  times  one  begins  to  doubt  if  there 
ever  was  such  a  painter.  His  extant  works  are  almost  as 
rare  as  those  of  Leonardo  da  Vinci  but  from  them  we  gain 
his  point  of  view  and  his  style.  It  seems  that  he  thought  of 
painting  almost  in  terms  of  rhythmic  poetry  or  with  a  lyric 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


129 


feeling  as  shown  in  music.  The  voluptuous  swell  of  line,  the 
high  pitch  of  color,  the  sharp  key  of  light,  the  undertone  of 
shadow,  all  mingled  for  him  into  radiant  melody.  He  sought 
pure  rhythmic  beauty  and  found  it  in  everything  of  nature. 
He  had  little  grasp  of  the  purely  intellectual,  and  the  religious 


FIG.    59.  —  GIORGIONE.      PORTRAIT.      KAISER-FRIED  RICH 
MUSEUM,   BERLIN. 

was  something  he  dealt  with  in  no  strong  devotional  way. 
The  fete,  the  concert,  the  fable,  the  legend,  with  a  landscape 
setting,  made  a  stronger  appeal  to  him.  More  of  a  recorder 
than  a  thinker  he  was  not  the  less  a  leader  showing  the  way 
into  that  new  Arcadian  grove  of  pleasure  whose  inhabitants 
thought  not  of  creeds  and  faiths  and  histories  and  literatures, 


130  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

but  were  content  to  lead  the  life  that  was  sweet  in  its  glow 
and  warmth  of  color,  its  light,  its  atmosphere,  its  bending 
trees,  and  arching  skies.  A  strong,  full-blooded  race,  sober- 
minded,  dignified,  rationally  happy  with  their  lot,  Giorgione 
portrayed  them  with  an  art  joyous  in  spirit  and  consummate 
in  skill.  Their  least  features  under  his  brush  seemed  to  glow 
like  jewels.  The  sheen  of  armor  and  rich  robe,  a  bare  forearm 
or  shoulder,  a  nude  back,  or  loosened  hair  —  mere  morsels  of 
color  and  light  —  all  took  on  a  new  beauty.  Even  landscape 
with  him  became  more  significant.  His  master,  Bellini,  had 
been  realistic  enough  in  the  details  of  trees  and  hills,  but 
Giorgione  grasped  the  meaning  of  landscape  as  an  entirety, 
and  rendered  it  with  a  breadth  suggestive  of  its  scope  and 
extent. 

Technically  he  adopted  the  oil  medium  brought  to  Venice 
by  Antonello  da  Messina,  and  through  scumbling  and  glazing 
produced  wonderful  brilliancy  and  depth  of  color.  Of  light- 
and-shade  he  was  a  master,  setting  an  example  that  was  widely 
followed  in  later  Italian  art;  and  in  atmospheric  envelope  he 
wTas,  again,  a  leader  with  many  followers.  He,  in  common 
with  all  the  Venetians,  is  sometimes  said  to  be  lacking  in 
drawing,  but  that  is  the  result  of  a  misunderstanding.  The 
Venetians  never  cared  to  accent  line,  choosing  rather  to  model 
in  masses  of  light  and  shadow  and  color. 

In  every  phase  of  technique  Giorgione  was  a  master  and 
yet  not  quite  up  to  his  contemporary  Titian.  That  is  not 
surprising,  for  Titian  (1477-1576)  was  the  painter  easily 
first  in  the  whole  range  of  Italian  art.  He  was  perhaps 
the  first  painter  in  Italy  to  handle  a  brush  with  all  the 
resources  of  craftsmanship  at  command.  And  yet  Titian's 
technique  was  probably  the  least  part  of  his  genius. 
Calm  in  mood,  dignified,  and  often  majestic  in  conception, 
learned  beyond  all  others  in  his  craft,  he  mingled  thought, 
feeling,  form  and  color  into  one  grand   and  glowing  whole. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


131 


He  emphasized  nothing,  yet  elevated  everything.  In  pure 
intellectual  thought  he  was  different  from  Raphael.  He  never 
sought  to  make  painting  a  vehicle  for  theological,  literary, 
or  classical  ideas.  His  tale  was  largely  of  humanity  under  a 
religious  or  classical  name,  but  a  noble,  majestic  humanity. 


FIG.   60.  —  TITIAN.      SACRED  AND   PROFANE   LOVE    (DETAIL). 
BORGHESE   GALLERY,      ROME. 

In  his  art  dignified  senators,  stern  doges,  and  solemn  eccle- 
siastics mingle  with  open-eyed  madonnas,  winning  Ariadnes, 
and  youthful  Bacchuses.  Men  and  women  they  are  truly, 
but  the  very  noblest  of  the  Italian  race,  the  mountain  race 
of  the  Cadore  country  —  proud,  active,  glowing  with  life;  the 
sea  race  of  Venice  —  worldly  wise,  full  of  character,  luxurious 
in  power. 


132  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

In  himself  Titian  was  an  epitome  of  all  the  excellences  of 
painting.  He  was  everything,  the  sum  of  Venetian  skill,  the 
crowning  genius  of  Renaissance  art.  He ^  had  force,  power, 
invention,  imagination,  point  of  view;  he  had  the  infinite 
knowledge  of  nature  and  the  infinite  mastery  of  art.  In 
addition,  Fortune  smiled  upon  him  as  upon  a  favorite  child. 
Trained  in  mind  and  hand  he  lived  for  ninety-nine  years 
and  worked  unceasingly  up  to  a  few  months  of  his  death. 
His  genius  was  great  and  his  accomplishment  equally  so.  He 
was  celebrated  and  independent  at  thirty-five,  though  before 
that  he  owed  something  to  the  influence  of  Giorgione.  After 
the  death  of  Giorgione  and  his  master,  Bellini,  Titian  was  the 
leader  in  Venice  to  the  end  of  his  long  life,  and  though  having 
few  scholars  of  importance  his  influence  was  spread  through 
all  North  Italian  painting. 

Taking  him  for  all  in  all,  perhaps  it  is  not  too  much  to  say 
that  he  was  the  greatest  painter  known  to  history.  If  it 
were  possible  to  describe  that  greatness  in  one  word,  that 
word  would  be  ''universality."  He  saw  and  painted  that 
which  was  universal  in  its  truth.  The  local  and  particular, 
the  small  and  the  accidental,  were  passed  over  for  those  great 
truths  which  belong  to  all  the  world  of  life.  In  this  respect  he 
was  a  veritable  Shakespeare,  with  all  the  calmness  and  repose 
of  one  who  overlooked  the  world  from  a  lofty  height. 

The  restfulness  and  easy  strength  of  Titian  were  not  char- 
acteristics of  his  follower  Tintoretto  (15 18-1592).  He  was 
frequently  violent,  headlong,  impulsive,  more  impetuous  than 
Michelangelo,  and  in  some  respects  a  strong  reminder  of  him. 
He  had  not  Michelangelo's  austerity,  and  there  was  more 
clash  and  tumult  and  fire  about  him,  but  he  had  a  command 
of  line  like  the  Florentine,  and  a  way  of  hurling  things,  as 
seen  in  the  Fall  of  the  Damned,  that  reminds  one  of  the  Last 
Judgment  of  the  Sistine.  It  was  rather  his  aim  to  combine 
the  line  of  Michelangelo  and  the  color  of  Titian,  or  at  least 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


133 


that  ambition  was  attributed  to  him ;  but  without  reaching  up 
to  either  model  he  produced  a  powerful  amalgam  of  his  own. 
He  was  one  of  the  great  artists  of  the  world,  and  the  most 
rapid  workman  in  the  whole  Renaissance  period.  There  are 
to-day,  after  centuries  of  decay,  fire,  theft,  and  repainting, 
yards  upon  yards  of  Tintoretto's  canvases  rotting  upon  the 


FIG.    6l.  —  TINTORETTO.      REMOVING   BODY   OF   ST.   MARK.      BRERA,   MILAN. 

walls  of  the  Venetian  churches.  He  produced  an  enormous 
amount  of  work,  and,  what  is  to  be  regretted,  much  of  it  was 
contract  work  or  experimental  sketching.  This  has  given 
his  art  a  rather  bad  name,  but  judged  by  his  best  works  in 
the  Ducal  Palace  and  the  Academy  at  Venice,  he  will  not  be 
found  lacking.  Even  in  his  masterpiece  (The  Miracle  of  the 
Slave)  he  is  "II  Furioso,"  as  they  used  to  call  him;   but  his 


134  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

thunderbolt  style  is  moderated  by  wonderful  grace,  strength 
of  modelling,  superb  contrasts  of  light  with  shade,  and  a 
coloring  of  flesh  and  robes  not  unworthy  of  the  very  greatest. 
He  was  a  man  who  worked  in  the  white  heat  of  passion,  with 
much  imagination  and  invention.  As  a  technician  he  sought 
difficulties  rather  than  avoided  them.  There  is  some  antag- 
onism between  form  and  color,  but  Tintoretto  tried  to  reconcile 
them.  The  result  was  sometimes  clashing,  but  no  one  could 
have  done  better  with  them  than  he  did.  He  wTas  a  fine 
draftsman,  a  good  colorist,  a  master  of  light,  and  a  facile 
brushman  —  in  short  a  master  of  the  painter's  craft. 

Paolo  Veronese  (i 528-1588),  the  fourth  great  Venetian, 
did  not  follow  the  line  direction  set  by  Tintoretto,  but  carried 
out  the  original  color-leaning  of  the  school.  He  came  a  little 
later  than  Tintoretto,  and  his  art  was  a  foretaste  of  the  advan- 
cing Renaissance,  wherein  simplicity  was  destined  to  lose  itself 
in  complexity,  grandeur,  and  display.  Paolo  came  on  the 
very  crest  of  the  Renaissance  wave,  when  art,  risen  to  its 
greatest  height,  was  gleaming  in  that  transparent  splendor 
that  precedes  the  fall. 

The  great  bulk  of  his  work  had  a  large  decorative 
motive  behind  it.  Almost  all  of  the  late  Venetian  work 
was  of  that  character.  Hence  it  was  brilliant  in  color, 
elaborate  in  subject,  and  grand  in  scale.  Splendid  robes, 
hangings,  furniture,  architecture,  jewels,  armor,  appeared 
everywhere.  And  not  in  flat,  lustreless  hues,  but  with  that 
relief  and  brilliancy  which  they  possess  in  nature.  Drapery 
gave  way  to  clothing,  and  texture-painting  was  intro- 
duced even  in  the  largest  canvases.  Scenes  from  Scripture 
and  legend  turned  into  grand  pageants  of  Venetian  splendor, 
and  the  facial  expression  of  the  characters  rather  passed  out 
in  favor  of  telling  masses  of  color  to  be  seen  at  a  distance  upon 
wall  or  ceiling.  It  was  pomp  and  glory  carried  to  the  highest 
pitch,  but  with  all  seriousness  of  mood  and  truthfulness  in 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


135 


art.  It  was  beyond  Titian  in  variety,  richness,  ornament, 
facility;  but  it  was  perhaps  below  Titian  in  sentiment, 
sobriety,  and  depth  of  insight.  Titian,  with  all  his  sensuous 
beauty,  did  appeal  to  the  higher  intelligence,  while  Paolo 
and  his  companions  appealed  more  positively  to  the  eye  by 
luxurious  color-settins^fcid  magnificence  of  invention.  The 
decadence  came  afti!r"Faolo,  but  not  with  him.     His  art  was 


FIG.    62.  —  VERONESE    (SCHOOL   OF).      INDUSTRY.     DUCAL   PALACE,   VENICE. 

the  most  gorgeous  of  the  Venetian  school,  and  by  many  is 
ranked  the  highest  of  all,  but  perhaps  it  is  better  to  say  it 
was  the  height.  Those  who  came  after  brought  about  the 
decline  by  striving  to  imitate  his  brilliancy,  and  thereby  falling 
into  extravagance. 

These  were  the  four  great  Venetians  —  the  men  of  first  rank. 
Beside  them  and  around  them  were  many  other  painters, 
placed  in  the  second  rank,  who  in  any  other  time  or  city  would 
have  held  first  place.     Palma  il  Vecchio  (i48o?-i528)  was  so 


136  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

excellent  in  many  ways  that  it  seems  unjust  to  speak  of  him 
as  a  second-rank  painter.  He  was  not,  however,  a  great 
original  mind,  though  in  many  respects  a  perfect  painter. 
He  was  influenced  by  Bellini  at  first,  and  then  by  Giorgione. 
In  subject  there  was  nothing  dramatic  about  him,  and  he 
carries  chiefly  by  his  portrayal  of  quiet,  dignified,  and  beau- 
tiful Venetians  under  the  names  of  saints  and  holy  families. 
The  St.  Barbara  is  an  example  of  this,  and  one  of  the  most 


FIC.   63.  —  PALMA   VECCHIO.      HOLY   FAMILY.      VENICE   ACADEMY. 

• 

majestic  figures  in  all  painting.  Sebastiano  del  Piombo 
(1485-1547)  was  another  Bellini-Giorgione  follower  who,  later 
on,  went  to  Rome  and  fell  under  the  spell  of  Michelangelo. 
It  is  said  that  under  Michelangelo's  inspiration  he  tried  to 
unite  Florentine  grandeur  of  line  with  Venetian  coloring  and 
thus  outdo  Raphael.  The  attempt  was  not  wholly  successful, 
though  resulting  in  an  excellent  quality  of  art.  His  larger 
figure  compositions  are,  however,  inclined  to  be  rhetorical  and 
academic.  As  a  portrait  painter  he  was  very  satisfactory. 
His  early  work  was  rather  free  in  handling  and  warm  in  color, 
his  later  efforts  were  smooth  of  surface  and  a  bit  cold. 


ITALIAN   PAINTING  137 

Lorenzo  Lotto  (i48o?-i556?)  was  a  pupil  of  Alvise  Vivarini, 
and  at  different  times  was  under  the  influence  of  several 
Venetian  painters  —  Bellini,  Giorgione,  Titian  —  without 
obliterating  a  sensitive  individuality  of  his  own.  His  work 
shows  much  invention,  agreeable  recitation,  and  not  a  little 
skill.  At  times  he  became  mannered  but  some  of  his  altar- 
pieces  are  commanding  and  in  portraits  he  occasionally  rose 
to  a  lofty  height,  as  in  the  portrait  of  the  red-bearded  man 
in  the  Brera.  Pordenone  (1483-1540)  rather  followed  after 
Giorgione,  and  unsuccessfully  competed  with  Titian.  He 
was  inclined  to  exaggeration  in  dramatic  composition,  but  was 
a  painter  of  undeniable  power.  Cariani  (1480-1544)  was 
another  Giorgione  follower.  The  name  is  now  little  more 
than  a  hook  upon  which  modern  art-experts  hang  pictures 
that  are  too  bad  for  Giorgione.  As  a  result  Cariani,  in  the 
museums,  passes  as  a  coarse  painter  with  a  multitude  of  styles. 
Bonifazio  Pitati  (fl.  15 10-1540)  probably  came  from  a  Veronese 
family.  He  showed  the  influence  of  Palma  and  Giorgione 
and  was  rather  deficient  in  drawing,  though  exceedingly 
brilliant  and  rich  in  coloring.  He  is  a  charming  painter  in 
his  groups  of  rich-robed  Venetians  and  a  very  original  master 
in  landscape  backgrounds.  Paris  Bordone  (1495-15  70)  was 
a  painter  of  Titian's  school,  gorgeous  in  color,  but  often  lack- 
ing in  truth  of  form.  His  Fisherman  and  the  Doge  in  the 
Venice  Academy  is  fairly  spectacular  in  its  gorgeousness  of 
color  but  is  nevertheless  a  masterpiece.  Bordone's  single 
figures  and  portraits  are,  at  times,  unusually  fine  in  quality. 
Girolamo  da  Treviso  the  Younger  (1497-1544)  perhaps  owed 
more  to  Giorgione  than  to  others  of  the  school,  though  lending 
himself  to  many  influences.  Another  painter  family,  the 
Bassani  —  there  were  six  of  them,  of  whom  Jacopo  Bassano 
(1510-1592)  and  his  sons  Francesco  Bassano  (1548-1591) 
and  Leandro  Bassano  (1558-1623)  were  the  most  noted  — 
formed  themselves  after  Venetian  masters,  and  were  rather 


138  HISTORY   OF   PAINTING 

remarkable  for  violent  contrasts  of  light  and  dark,  genre 
treatment  of  sacred  subjects  in  the  open  air,  still-life  and 
animal  painting.  Rocco  Marconi  (fl.  1505-15 20)  was  one  of 
the  older  Venetian  followers  of  Bellini  who  lived  into  the  later 
period  and  produced  pictures  of  Palma-Bordone  influences  — 


FIG.   64.  —  BORDONE.      THE   LOVERS.      BRERA,    MILAN. 

pictures  rich  in  color  and  rather  fine  in  landscape.  Licinio 
(1520-1544)  and  Schiavone  (1522-1582)  were  other  painters 
of  the  school  following  Titian  with  some  skill  of  their  own. 

PAINTING  IN  VENETIAN  TERRITORIES:  Venetian  paint- 
ing was  not  confined  to  Venice,  but  extended  through  all  the 
Venetian  territories  in  Renaissance  times,  and  those  who 
lived  away  from  the  city  were,  in  their  art,  often  decidedly 
Venetian  though  possessing  local  characteristics. 


ITALIAN  PAINTING 


139 


At  Brescia  Savoldo  (i48o?-i548),  a  rather  superficial  painter, 
fond  of  weird  lights  and  sheeny  draperies,   and  Romanino 


FIG.   65.  —  BASSANO.      RESURRECTION   OF   LAZARUS. 
ACADEMY,   VENICE. 

(1485?-! 566),  a  follower  of  Giorgione,  good  in  composition 
but  unequal  and  careless  in  execution,  were  the  earliest  of 
the  High  Renaissance  men.     Moretto  (1498?-! 5 54)  was  the 


140  HISTORY  OF    PAINTING 

strongest  and  most  original,  a  man  of  individuality  and  power, 
remarkable  technically  for  his  delicacy  and  unity  of  color  under 
a  veil  of  silvery  tone.  In  composition  he  was  dignified  and 
noble,  and  in  brush-work  simple  and  direct.  One  of  the 
great  painters  of  the  time,  he  seemed  to  stand  more  apart 
from  Venetian  influence  than  any  other  on  Venetian  territory. 
He  left  one  remarkable  pupil,  Moroni  (fl.  1 549-1 578),  whose 
portraits  are  to-day  greatly  admired  for  their  modern  spirit 
and  treatment. 

At  Verona,  in  the  time  of  Caroto,  came  Torbido  (14S6?- 
1546?),  a  vacillating  painter,  influenced  by  Liberale  da  Verona, 
Giorgione, .  Bonifazio,  Veronese,  and  later,  even  by  Giulio 
Romano.  He  did  some  good  portraits  after  the  Giorgione 
style.  Cavazzola  (1486-1522)  was  more  original,  and  a  man 
of  talent.  A  little  later  appeared  Brusasorci  (1494-1567) 
and  Antonio  Badile  (1517-1567),  both  of  whom  had  a  decided 
influence  in  forming  the  style' of  Paolo  Veronese. 

There  were  numbers  of  other  painters  scattered  all  through 
the  Venetian  provinces  at  this  time,  but  they  were  not  of  the 
first,  or  even  the  second  rank,  and  hence  call  for  no  mention 
here. 

EXTANT  WORKS:  For  lists  of  painters'  works  note  the  reference 
at  the  end  of  Chapter  V.  Pictures  by  the  great  Venetians  are  found  in 
almost  every  public  gallery  in  Europe.  Many  of  their  masterpieces  are 
still  to  be  seen  in  Venetian  churches,  palaces,  and  museums. 


CHAPTER   XI 
ITALIAN  PAINTING 

THE   DECADENCE   AND   MODERN   WORK.       160O-I915 

Books  Recommended:  The  works  on  Italian  art  before 
mentioned,  the  General  Bibliography  and  also:  Calvi,  Notizie 
delta  vita  e  delle  opere  di  Gio.  Francesco  Barbieri;  Gubernati, 
Dizionario  degli  artisti  italiani  viventi;  Malvasia,  Felsina  Pit- 
trice;  Molmenti,  G.  B.  Tiepolo;  Muther,  History  of  Modern 
Painting;  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds,  Discourses;  Symonds,  Renais- 
sance in  Italy  —  The  Catholic  Reaction;  Willard,  Modem 
Italian  Art. 

THE  DECLINE :  An  art  movement  in  history  seems  like  a 
wave  that  rises  to  a  height,  then  breaks,  falls,  and  parts  of 
it  are  caught  up  from  beneath  to  help  form  the  strength  of 
a  new  advance.  In  Italy  Christianity  was  the  first  propelling 
force  of  the  wave.  In  the  Early  Renaissance,  the  antique  and 
the  study  of  nature  came  in  as  additions.  At  Venice  in  the 
High  Renaissance  the  art-for-art's-sake  motive  made  the  crest 
of  light  and  color.  The  highest  point  was  reached  then,  and 
there  was  nothing  that  could  follow  but  the  breaking  and  the 
scattering  of  the  wave.  This  took  place  in  Central  Italy 
after  1540,  in  Venice  after  1590. 

Art  had  typified  in  form,  thought,  and  expression  every- 
thing of  which  the  Italian  race  was  capable  in  Renaissance 
times.  It  had  perfected  all  the  graces  and  elegancies  of  line 
and  color,  and  adorned  them  with  a  superlative  splendor. 
There  was  nothing  more  to  do.  The  idea  was  completed, 
the  motive  power  had  served  its  purpose,  and  that  store  of 


142 


HISTORY  OF   TAINTING 


race-impulse  which  seems  necessary  to  the  making  of  every 
great  art  was  exhausted.  For  the  men  that  came  immediately 
after  Michelangelo  and  Tintoretto  there  was  practically  noth- 
ing. About  all  they  could  do  was  to  repeat  what  others  had 
said,  or  to  recombine  the  old  thoughts  and  forms.     This  led 

inevitably  to  imitation, 
over-refinement  of  style 
and  method,  and  con- 
scious study  of  beauty 
resulting  in  mannerism 
and  affectation.  Such 
qualities  marked  the  art 
of  those  painters  who 
came  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  sixteenth  century 
and  the  first  of  the  seven- 
teenth. They  were  un- 
fortunate men  in  the 
time  of  their  birth. 
No  painter  could  have 
been  great  in  the  seven- 
teenth century  of  Italy. 
Art  lay  prone  upon  its 
face,  and  the  late  men 
were  left  upon  the  barren 
sands  by  the  receding 
wave  of  the  Renaissance. 
ART  MOTIVES  AND  SUBJECTS :  As  before,  the  chief  sub- 
ject of  the  art  of  the  Decadence  was  religion,  with  many 
huge  altar-pieces,  and  many  heads  and  busts  of  the  Madonna, 
though  nature  and  the  classic  still  played  their  parts.  After 
the  Reformation  at  the  North  the  Church  in  Italy  started  the 
Counter-Reformation.  One  of  the  chief  means  employed 
by  this  Catholic  reaction  in  Italy  was  the  embellishment  of 


FIG.    66.  —  BRONZINO.      CHRIST   IN   HADES. 
FLORENCE. 


UFFIZI, 


ITALIAN  PAINTING  143 

church  worship,  and  painting  on  a  large  scale,  on  panel  rather 
more  than  in  fresco,  was  demanded  for  decorative  purposes. 
But  the  religious  motive  had  passed  out,  though  its  subject 
was  retained,  and  the  pictorial  motive  had  reached  its  climax 
at  Venice.  The  faith  of  the  one  and  the  taste  and  skill  of  the 
other  were  not  attainable  by  the  late  men,  and,  while  con- 
sciously striving  to  achieve  them,  they  fell  into  exaggerated 
sentiment  and  technical  weakness.  It  seems  perfectly  appar- 
ent in  their  works  that  they  had  little  or  nothing  of  their  own 
to  say,  and  that  they  were  trying  to  say  over  again  what 
Michelangelo,  Correggio,  and  Titian  had  said  before  them 
much  better.  There  were  earnest  men  and  good  painters 
among  them,  but  they  seemed  to  produce  only  the  empty 
form  of  art.     The  spirit  had  fled. 

THE  MANNERISTS:  Immediately  after  the  High  Renais- 
sance leaders  at  Florence  and  Rome  came  the  imitators  and 
exaggerators  of  their  styles.  They  produced  large,  crowded 
canvases,  with  a  hasty  facility  of  the  brush,  and  often  striking 
effects  of  composition.  Seeking  the  grand  they  overshot 
the  temperate.  Their  elegance  was  affected,  their  sentiment 
forced,  their  brilliancy  superficial  glitter.  When  they  thought 
to  be  ideal  they  lost  themselves  in  incomprehensible  alle- 
gories; when  they  thought  to  be  real  they  grew  prosaic  in  de- 
tail. These  men  are  known  in  art  history  as  the  Mannerists, 
and  the  men  whose  works  they  imitated  were  chiefly  Raphael, 
Michelangelo,  and  Correggio.  There  were  many  of  them, 
and  some  of  them  have  already  been  spoken  of  as  the  followers 
of  Michelangelo. 

Bronzino  (1502?-!  5 7 2)  was  a  pupil  of  Pontormo,  and  an 
imitator  of  Michelangelo,  painting  in  rather  heavy  colors 
with  a  thin  brush.  His  characters  were  large,  but  never 
quite  free  from  weakness,  except  in  portraiture,  where  he 
appeared  at  his  best.  Vasari  (1511-1574)  —  the  same  Vasari 
who  wrote  the  Lives  of  the  painters  —  had  versatility  and 


144 


HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 


facility,  but  his  superficial  imitations  of  Michelangelo  were 
too  grandiose  in  conception  and  too  palpably  exaggerated  in 
modelling.  Salviati  (15 10-1563)  was  a  friend  of  Vasari,  a 
painter  of  about  the  same  cast  of  mind  and  hand  as  Vasari, 
and  Federigo  Zuccaro  (1 543-1609)  belongs  with  them  in 
producing    things   muscularly    big    but    intellectually    small. 

Some  of  Zuccaro's  smal- 
ler pictures  and  his 
portraits  are  of  better 
quality.  Baroccio(i528- 
161 2),  though  classed 
among  the  Mannerists  as 
an  imitator  of  Correggio 
and  Raphael,  was  really 
one  of  the  superior  men 
of  the  late  times.  There 
were  affectation  and 
sentimentality  about  his 
work,  a  prettiness  of 
face,  rosy  flesh  tints,  and 
a  general  lightness  of 
color,  but  he  was  a  good 
draftsman  and  colorist, 
and,  at  times,  a  man  of 
earnestness  and  power. 
His  color  and  brush 
work  had  a  decided  in- 
fluence upon  Rubens. 
THE  ECLECTICS :  After  the  Mannerists  came  the  Eclectics 
of  Bologna,  led  by  the  Caracci,  who,  late  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  sought  to  " revive"  art.  They  started  out  to  correct 
the  faults  of  the  Mannerists,  and  yet  their  own  art  was  based 
more  on  the  art  of  their  great  predecessors  than  on  nature. 
They  thought  to  make  a  union  of  Renaissance  excellences  by 


FIG.  67.  —  DANIELE  DA  VOLTERRA.   DESCENT  FROM 
CROSS.   ROUE. 


ITALIAN    PAINTING 


i4S 


combining  Michelangelo's  line,  Titian's  color,  Correggio's 
light-and-shade  and  Raphael's  symmetry  and  grace.  The 
attempt  was  perhaps  praiseworthy  for  the  time,  but  hardly 
successful.  They  caught  the  lines  and  lights  and  colors  of 
the  great  men,  but  they  overlooked  the  fact  that  the  excel- 
lence of  the  imitated  lay  largely  in  their  inimitable  individu- 
alities, which  could  not 
be  combined.  The  Eclec- 
tic work  was  done  with 
intelligence,  but  their  sys- 
tem was  against  them 
and  their  baroque  age 
was  against  them.  Mid- 
way in  their  career  the 
Caracci  themselves  mod- 
ified their  eclecticism  and 
placed  more  reliance 
upon  nature.  But  their 
pupils  paid  little  heed  to 
the  modification. 

There  were  five  of  the 
Caracci,  but  three  of  them 

—  Ludovico  (i 555-1619), 
Agostino  (1557-1602), 
and  Annibale  (1 560-1609) 

—  led  the  school,  and  of 

these  Annibale  was  the  most  distinguished.  They  had 
many  pupils,  and  their  influence  was  widely  spread  over 
Italy.  In  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds's  day  they  were  ranked  with 
Raphael,  but  at  the  present  time  criticism  places  them  more 
modestly  as  painters  of  the  Decadence  with  little  origi- 
nality or  spontaneity  in  their  art,  though  much  technical 
skill.  Occasionally  they  produced  work  that  even  now  is 
astonishing    but    usually    they    fall    short    of    attainment. 


FIG.    6S.  — GUIDO   RENI.      ST.   MICHAEL.      ROME. 


146  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

Domenichino  (1581-1641)  is  counted  among  their  followers. 
His  St.  Jerome  was  rated  by  Poussin  as  one  of  the  three 
great  paintings  of  the  world,  but  it  never  deserved  such 
rank.  It  is  well  composed,  but  poor  in  coloring  and 
handling.  The  painter  had  great  repute  in  his  time,  and  was 
one  of  the  best  of  the  seventeenth  century  men.  Guido  Reni 
(1 575-1642)  was  a  painter  of  many  gifts  and  accomplishments, 
combined  with  many  weaknesses.  His  works  are  well  com- 
posed and  show  inventive  power  but  are  excessive  in  senti- 
ment and  overdone  in  pathos.  Albani  (1 578-1660)  ran  to 
elegance  and  a  porcelain-like  surface  that  prettifies  his  work. 
Guercino  (1 591-1666)  was  originally  of  the  Eclectic  School  at 
Bologna,  but  later  took  up  with  the  methods  of  the  Natural- 
ists. He  was  a  painter  of  far  more  than  the  average  ability 
and  often  did  forceful  pictures. 

Sassoferrato  (1605-1685)  and  Carlo  Dolci  (1616-1686) 
came  late  and  were  more  allied  with  the  Roman  than  the 
Bolognese  school.  They  were  so  supersaturated  with  senti- 
mentality that  often  their  skill  as  painters  is  overlooked  or 
forgotten.  In  spirit  they  were  about  the  weakest  of  the 
century.  They  had  many  contemporaries  at  Rome  such  as 
Cristofano  Allori  (1577-1621),  an  exceptionally  strong  man  for 
the  time,  and  Berrettini  (1 596-1669),  and  Maratta  (1625- 
17 13),  who  manufactured  a  facile  kind  of  painting  from  what 
was  attractive  in  the  various  schools,  but  their  work  was  never 
good  work  save  in  portraiture.  There  were  other  schools 
started  to  "  revive  "  art  throughout  Italy  —  at  Milan,  Cremona, 
Ferrara  —  but  they  produced  little  worth  recording.  Art 
could  not  be  " revived." 

THE  NATURALISTS :  At  the  time  of  the  Eclectics  at  Bologna 
there  sprang  up  the  school  of  the  Naturalists  at  Rome  and 
Naples,  led  .by  Caravaggio  (1569-1609)  and  his  pupils.  These 
schools  opposed  each  other,  and  yet  influenced  each  other. 
Especially  was  this  true  with  the  later  men,  who  took  what 


ITALIAN    PAINTING 


147 


was  best  in  both  schools.  The  Naturalists  were,  perhaps, 
more  firmly  based  upon  nature  than  the  Bolognese  Eclectics. 
Their  aim  was  to  take  nature  as  they  found  it,  and  yet,  in 
conformity  with  the  extravagance  of  the  age,  they  depicted 


FIG.   69.  — -ALLORI.      JUDITH.      PITTI,   FLORENCE. 

extravagant  nature.  Caravaggio  thought  to  represent  sacred 
scenes  more  truthfully  by  taking  his  models  from  the  harsh 
street  life  about  him  and  giving  types  of  saints  and  apostles 
from  brawlers  and  bandits.  It  was  a  brutal,  coaree  represen- 
tation, rather  fierce  in  mood  and  impetuous  in  action,  yet 
not  without  a  good  deal  of  tragic  power.     His  subjects  were 


I4-S  HISTORY   OF   PAINTING 

rather  dismal  or  morose,  but  there  was  knowledge  in  the 
drawing  of  them,  some  good  color  and  brush-work  and  a 
peculiar  darkness  of  shadow  masses  (originally  gained  from 
Giorgione),  that  stood  as  an  earmark  of  the  whole  school. 
From  the  continuous  use  of  black  shadows  the  school  got 
the  name  of  the  "Darklings,"  by  which  they  are  still  known. 
Giordano  (1632-1705),  a  painter  of  prodigious  facility  and 
invention,  Salvator  Rosa  (161 5-1673),  best  known  as  one  of 
the  early  painters  of  landscape,  Valentin  (1600-1634)^  painter 
born  in  France  but  a  follower  of  Caravaggio,  and  Ribera,  a 
Spanish  painter,  were  the  principal  painters  of  the  school. 

THE  LATE  VENETIANS:  The  Decadence  at  Venice,  like 
the  Renaissance,  came  later  than  at  Florence,  but  after  the 
death  of  Tintoretto  mannerisms  and  the  imitation  of  the  great 
men  did  away  with  originality.  There  was  still  much  color 
left,  and  fine  ceiling  decorations  wrere  done,  but  the  nobility 
and  calm  splendor  of  Titian's  early  days  had  passed.  Palma 
il  Giovine  (1 544-1628)  with  a  hasty  brush  produced  imita- 
tions of  Tintoretto  with  some  grace  and  force,  and  in  remark- 
able quantity.  He  and  Tintoretto  were  the  most  rapid  and 
productive  painters  of  the  century;  but  Palma's  work  was 
not  good  in  spirit,  though  quite  dashing  in  method.  Pado- 
vanino  (1500-1650)  was  a  Titian  follower,  and,  like  all  the 
other  painters  of  the  time,  he  was  proficient  with  the  brush 
but  lacking  in  the  stronger  mental  elements.  Piazzetta  (1682- 
1754)  was  influenced  by  Guercino  and  was  a  painter  of  in- 
fluence and  distinction.  The  last  great  Venetian  painter, 
however,  wasPiazzetta's  younger  contemporary,  Tiepolo  (1696- 
1770),  and  he  was  really  great  beyond  his  age.  With  an  art 
influenced  by  Piazzetta  but  founded  on  Paolo  Veronese,  he 
produced  decorative  ceilings  and  panels  of  high  quality,  with 
wonderful  invention,  a  limpid  brush,  and  a  light  flaky  color 
peculiarly  appropriate  to  the  walls  of  churches  and  palaces. 
He  was,   especially  in   easel  pictures,   a  brilliant,   vivacious 


ITALIAN    PAINTING 


149 


brushman,  full  of  dash  and  spirit,  tempered  by  a  large  knowl- 
edge of  what  was  true  and  pictorial.  Some  of  his  best  pictures 
and  frescos  are  still  in  Venice  or  near  there,  and  modern 
painters  are  unstinted  in  their  praise  of  them.     He  left  a  son, 


FIG.    70.  —  CARAVAGGIO.      DEPOSITION.      VATICAN   GALLERY. 

Domenico  Tiepolo  (1726-1795)^110  followed  his  methods  and 
whose  pictures  have  largely  been  attributed  to  his  father. 
In  the  late  days  of  Venetian  painting,  Canaletto  (1697-1768) 
and  Guardi  (17 12- 1793)  achieved  reputation  by  painting 
Venetian   canals   and   architecture   with   much   color   effect. 


15° 


HISTORY   OF   PAINTING 


Guardi  was  perhaps  the  better  colorist  of  the  two  but  Cana- 
letto's  nephew,  Bellotto  (1720-17S0),  generally  left  unmentioned 
in  art  histories,  was  by  far  the  strongest  painter  of  the  group. 
His  pictures  are  usually  coarse,  especially  those  at  Dresden, 
but  at  the  Vienna  Gallery  he  rises  to  a  great  height  in  an  aston- 
ishing series  of  large  pictures.     Longhi  (1702-1785),  a  genre 


FIG.    71.  —  TIEPOLO.      CALVARY.      S.    ALVISE,    VENICE. 


He 


painter  of  fashionable  folk  in  later  Venice,  comes  in  here 
is  just  now  popular  but  was  never  forceful. 

MODERN  PAINTING  IN  ITALY:  There  is  little  in  the  art 
of  Italy  during  recent  times  that  shows  a  positive  national 
spirit.  .  It  has  been  leaning  on  the  rest  of  Europe  for  many 
years,  and  the  best  that  the  living  painters  show  is  largely 
an  echo  of  Dusseldorf,  Munich,  or  Paris.     The  revived  clas- 


ITALIAN    PAINTING 


151 


sicism  of  David  in  France  affected  nineteenth-century  painting 
in  Italy  somewhat.  The  reaction  of  Romanticism  also  found 
its  reflection.  Afterward  painting  was  swayed  by  Cornelius 
and  Overbeck  from  Germany.  Morelli  (1826-1901)  shows 
this  latter  influence,  though  he  was  also  influenced  by 
Fortuny.  He  was  the  head  of  the  Modern  Neapolitan 
School.*  In  the  1870's  Mariano  Fortuny,  a  Spaniard  at 
Rome,  led  the  younger  element  in  the  glittering  and  the 
sparkling,  and  this  style,  mingled  with  much  that  is  more 
strikingly  Parisian   than  Italian,  may  be  found  in  the  works 


■ 


FIG.    72.  —  SEGANTINI.      PLOUGHING. 


of  painters  like  Michetti,  a  pupil  of  Morelli,  devoted  to  light 
and  gay  color,  De  Nittis  who  worked  much  in  Paris,  Favretto, 
a  brilliant  painter  of  Venetian  genre  in  the  style  of  Guardi 
who  was  also  influenced  by  Fortuny.  Tito,  painting  Venetian 
girls,  with  Nono,  Vinea,  Simonetti,  all  show  the  modern 
influences  of  either  Rome  or  Paris  —  chiefly  Paris. 

Of  later  days  the  impressionistic  view  of  light  and  color 
has  had  its  influence;  but  the  Italian  work  at  its  best  is  below 
that  of  France.  Segantini  (1858-1899)  was  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  of  the  younger  men  in  subjects  that  have  a  Bocklin 
air  about  them,  mixed  with  the  sturdy  simplicity  of  Millet 
and  the  open-air  light  of  Monet.     He  lived  in  the  Alps,  painted 

*  See  Scribner's  Magazine,  Neapolitan  Art,  Dec.,  1890,  Feb.,  1891. 


152  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

the  peasantry  there,  and  died  young  leaving  some  pictures 
of  great  sincerity,  truth,  force,  and  color.  Boldini,  though 
Italian  born  and  originally  following  Fortuny's  example,  is 
really  more  Parisian  than  anything  else.  He  is  an  artist 
of  much  technical  strength  in  genre  subjects  and  portraits. 
The  more  recent  men  are  Fragiocomo,  Fattori,  Mancini, 
Marchetti. 

EXTANT  WORKS:  For  lists  of  painters'  pictures  note  the  ref- 
erence at  the  end  of  Chapter  V.  Pictures  of  the  Decadence  are  shown 
in  almost  every  gallery  of  Italy.  The  works  of  the  modern  men 
change  hands  too  often  for  mention  here.  Only  the  most  talented  of 
the  living  painters  are  referred  to. 


CHAPTER   XII 
FRENCH   PAINTING 

FROM    THE    BEGINNING   TO    THE    NINETEENTH   CENTURY 

Books  Recommended:  Consult  the  General  Bibliography 
and  also:  Berger,  Histoire  de  VEcole  franqaise  de  peinture  au 
XVI Ime  Steele;  Bland,  Les  Peintres  des  fetes  galantes,  Watteau, 
Boucher,  et  al.;  Bouchot,  Les  Clouets  et  Comeille  de  Lyon; 
Les  Primitifs  franqais;  Bouyer,  Claude  Lorrain;  Charvet, 
Jean  Perreal;  Curmer,  VGLuvre  de  Jean  Fouquet;  Desjardins, 
Poussin;  Didot,  Etudes  sur  Jean  Cousin;  Dimier,  French 
Painting  in  XVIth  Century;  Les  Primitifs  franqais;  Dumont, 
Antoine  Watteau;  Dussieux,  Nouvelles  Recherches  sur  la  Vie 
de  E.  Lesueur;  Emeric-David,  Histoire  de  la  Peinture  au  Moyen 
Age;  Genevay,  Charles  Le  Brun;  Le  Style  Louis  XIV;  Ger- 
main, Les  Neerlandais  en  Bourgogne;  Les  Clouets;  Goncourt, 
L'Art  du  XVIIIme  Siecle;  Gonze,  Les  Chefs  d'CEuvres  des 
Musees  de  France;  Gruyer,  Les  Quarante  Fouquet;  Guibel, 
Eloge  de  Nicolas  Poussin;  GuifTrey,  La  Famille  de  Jean  Cousin; 
Hourticq,  Art  in  France;  Laborde,  La  Renaissance  des  Arts 
a  la  Cour  de  France;  Lagrange,  /.  Vernet  et  la  Peinture  au 
XVIIIme  Siecle;  Lecoy  de  la  Marche,  Le  Roi  Rene;  Loo, 
U Exposition  des  Primitifs  franqais;  Mantz,  Franqois  Boucher; 
La  Peinture  franqaise  du  IXe  au  XV P  Siecle;  La  Peinture 
franqaise;  Merson,  La  Peinture  franqaise;  Michiels,  Etudes 
sur  VArt  flamand  dans  Vest  et  le  midi  de  la  France;  Muntz, 
La  Renaissance  en  Italie  et  en  France;  Palustre,  La  Renaissance 
en  France;  Pattison,  Claude  Lorrain;  Renaissance  of  Art  in 
France;  Poillon,  Nicolas  Poussin;  Stranahan,  History  of 
French  Painting. 

EARLY  FRENCH  ART:  The  history  of  painting  in  France 
during  the  early  Christian,  Romanesque,  and  Gothic  periods  is 


i54  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

vague  and  is  often  confused  by  positive  assertions  that  lack 
foundation  in  fact.  It  seems  probable  that  work  of  the  Roman 
fresco  kind  was  used  in  the  first  centuries.  Then  came  the 
influence  of  Byzantine  art  showing  as  early  as  the  eighth 
century  in  miniatures,  illuminations,  and  fresco.  Half  ob- 
literated frescos  in  the  churches  near  Poitiers  and  elsewhere 
show  Byzantine  types  and  patterns,  given  with  coarse  drawing, 
stiff  attitudes,  dark  outline  bands,  and  rather  violent  colors. 
Similar  patterns  and  types  are  preserved  in  missal  illuminations 
and  leave  not  the  slightest  doubt  of  the  influence  of  Byzantine 
art  at  that  time.  In  the  thirteenth  century  glass  painting 
in  the  churches  and  elsewhere  had  become  a  peculiarly  national 
craft.  Transparent  windows  in  the  churches  told  the  Bible 
story  better  than  frescos  on  the  wall  and  the  latter  began  to 
disappear.  The  window  patterns  and  types  were  at  first 
Byzantine  but  in  the  fourteenth  century  the  figures  became 
more  realistic,  the  technique  more  exact,  the  drawing  and 
coloring  truer,  but  the  decorative  effect  was  less  happy.  The 
decorative  motive  —  showing  itself  not  only  in  glass  but  in 
church  ornament,  garments,  furniture,  miniatures,  illumina- 
tions —  had  been  a  strong  feature  from  the  beginning. 

In  the  fifteenth  century  the  realistic  tendency  of  the  pre- 
ceding time  increased  in  force.  Naturalistic  effects  were 
introduced  everywhere.  Painting  expanded  in  scale  —  prob- 
ably grew  from  illumination  and  glass  painting  into  panel 
painting  in  tempera.  The  gold  backgrounds  were  removed 
from  the  illumination  and  formal  landscape  with  plain  blue 
sky  was  at  first  substituted.  Possibly  by  such  gradual 
changes  as  this  the  realistic  panel  was  evolved.  At  any  rate 
at  the  time  of  King  Rene  (1409- 1480),  who  is  also  supposed 
to  have  been  a  painter  of  some  note,  the  art  of  direct  repre- 
sentation was  well  under  way  and  well  understood.  Rene 
is  supposed  to  have  given  art  an  impetus  which  he  in  turn 
may  have  received  from  both  Italy  and  Flanders.     There 


FRENCH  PAINTING 


155 


had  been  Italian  influence  at  Avignon  when  the  Papacy  was 
there  and  Rene's  court  was  a  half-way  house  between  Italy 
and  Flanders  where  wandering  artists  from  both  countries 
stopped  en  route.  The  questions  of  influence  just  here  — 
whether  the  early  French  painters  really  were  French  or 
whether  they  came  from  or  were  influenced  from  Italian  or 
Flemish  shops  —  are  very  much  mooted  at  the  present  time. 
So  little  is  positively  known  that  one  cannot  be  arbitrary  in 
statement.  It  is  prob- 
able, however,  that  the 
early  men  were  French 
enough  but  accepted 
methods  and  influences 
from  without,  chiefly  and 
at  first  from  Flanders 
and  from  allied  Bur- 
gundy and  afterward  from 
Italy. 

Malouel,  Bellechose, 
and  Broederlam  are  fif- 
teenth-century names  of 
painters  that  are  little 
more  than  names.  Ma- 
louel (a  supposed  uncle 
of  the  Limbourgs,  miniaturists)  and  Bellechose  have  works 
assigned  to  them  in  the  Louvre  that  show  half-Byzantine 
drawing  and  simple  pure  colors  possessed  of  depth  and 
beauty.  They  with  Broederlam  are  supposed  to  have 
worked  for  the  Dukes  of  Burgundy.  Nicolas  Froment 
adopted  Flemish  naturalism  with  much  vigor  and  effect  if  we 
can  believe  his  portraits  of  King  Rene  and  Jeanne  de  Laval 
in  the  Louvre.  Jean  Fouquet  (141 5-1485)  went  to  Italy 
and  probably  brought  back  some  Italian  assimilations.  His 
portrait  of  Juvenal  des  Ursins  (Louvre)  and  that  of  Charles 


PIC. 


73.  —  FOUQUET.      ST.    STEPHEN   AND   DONOR 
KA1SER-FEIEDR1CH    MUSEUM,    BERLIN. 


156  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

VII  (Louvre)  disclose  Italian  Largeness  and  breadth.  His 
follower  Jean  Bourdichon  (ll.  14S4)  achieved  success  as  a 
miniaturist,  painting  among  other  works  the  Book  of  Hours  of 
Anne  of  Brittany  (Bibliotheque  Nationale).  Another  min- 
iaturist of  note  was  Marmion  (c.  1425-?).  Two  panels,  now 
in  the  Berlin  gallery,  are  attributed  to  him.  They  are  of  a 
van  Eyck  quality  as  regards  their  skill  and  beauty  but  dis- 
tinctly different  from  anything  Flemish.  The  Master  of 
Moulins  (fl.  1483-15 29)  is  the  name  given  to  the  painter  of  a 
triptych  in  the  Moulins  cathedral  and  some  portraits  in  the 
Louvre  and  elsewhere.  He  is  supposed  to  be  identical  with 
Jehan  Perreal.  His  work  is  graceful,  perhaps  softened  by 
Italian  influence,  but  very  sincere  and  not  wanting  in  knowl- 
edge.    His  portraits  are  excellent. 

SIXTEENTH-CENTURY  PAINTING:  During  this  century 
Francis  I,  at  Fontainebleau,  seems  to  have  encouraged  two 
schools  of  painting,  one  the  existing  French  and  the  other  an 
imported  Italian,  which  afterward  took  to  itself  the  name  of 
the  "  School  of  Fontainebleau."  Of  the  local  artists  the 
Clouets  were  the  most  conspicuous.  They  were  of  Flemish 
origin,  and  followed  Flemish  methods  both  in  technique  and 
mediums.  There  were  four  of  them,  of  whom  Jean  (1485?- 
1540?)  and  his  son  Francois  (i5oo?-i572?)  were  the  most  note- 
worthy. They  painted  many  portraits,  and  Francois'  work, 
bearing  some  pale  resemblance  to  that  of  Holbein,  the  ques- 
tionable statement  has  been  made  that  he  was  a  pupil  of  that 
painter.  In  a  similar  vein  worked  Corneille  de  Lyon  (fl.  c. 
1540).  All  of  their  work  was  remarkable  for  detail  and  closely 
followed  facts.  Their  portraits  in  the  Louvre  show  aristo- 
cratic sisters  portrayed  simply,  smoothly,  easily,  but  with 
much  sincerity  and  vitality. 

The  Italian  importation  came  about  largely  through  the 
initiative  of  Francis  I.  He  invited  to  Fontainebleau  Leo- 
nardo da  Vinci,  Andrea  del  Sarto,  II  Rosso,  Primaticcio,  and 


FRENCH  PAINTING 


157 


Niccolo  dell'  Abbate.  These  painters  greatly  influenced  and 
finally  superseded  the  local  painters.  The  result  was  an 
Italianized  school  of  French  art  which  ruled  in  France  for 
many  years.  Primaticcio  was  probably  the  greatest  of  the 
influencers,  remaining  as  he  did  for  thirty  years  in  France. 
Such  native  painters  as  Jean  Cousin  (1500?-]: 589)  and  Tous- 
saint  du  Breuil   (1 561-1602)   followed  his  style,  and  in  the 


FIG.    74.  —  CLAUDE   LORRA1N.      LANDSCAPE.      MUNICH   GALLERY. 

next  century  the  painters  were  even  more  servile  imitators  of 
Italy  —  imitating  not  the  best  models  either,  but  the 
Mannerists,  the  Eclectics,  and  the  Roman  painters  of  the 
Decadence. 

SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY  PAINTING:  This  was  a  century 
of  great  development  and  production  in  France,  the  time  of 
the  founding  of  the  French  Academy  of  Painting  and  Sculp- 
ture, the  creation  of  schools  of  art,  and  the  formation  of  many 


158  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

picture  collections.  In  the  first  part  of  the  century  the 
Flemish  and  native  tendencies  still  existed.  Callot  (1593- 
1635)  and  the  three  brothers  Le  Nain  were  doing  original 
and  very  forceful  work  of  their  own;  but  they  were  overawed, 
outnumbered  by  those  that  echoed  Italy  and  the  Italians. 
Not  even  Rubens'  painting  for  Marie  de'  Medici  in  the  palace 
of  the  Luxembourg  could  stem  the  tide  of  Italy.  The  French 
painters  flocked  to  Rome  to  study  the  art  of  their  great 
predecessors  and  were  led  astray  by  the  flashy  elegance  of 
the  late  Italians.  Freminet  (1567-1619)  spent  fifteen  years  in 
Italy  studying  Parmigianino  and  Michelangelo.  His  work 
had  something  of  the  Mannerist  style  about  it  and  was  over- 
wrought and  exaggerated.  In  shadows  he  seemed  to  have 
borrowed  from  Caravaggio.  Vouet  (1590-1649)  was  only  a 
trifle  better  —  a  student  in  Italy  of  Veronese's  painting 
and  afterward  of  Guido  Reni  and  Caravaggio.  He  was  a 
mediocre  artist,  but  had  a  great  vogue  in  France  and  left 
many  celebrated  pupils. 

By  all  odds  the  best  painter  of  this  time  was  Nicolas  Poussin 
(1 594-1665).  He  lived  almost  all  of  his  life  in  Rome,  and 
might  be  put  down  as  an  Italian  of  the  Decadence.  He  was 
well  versed  in  classical  archaeology,  and  had  much  of  the 
classic  taste  and  feeling  prevalent  at  that  time  in  the  Roman 
school  of  Giulio  Romano.  His  work  showed  great  intelli- 
gence and  had  an  elevated  grandiloquent  style  about  it  that 
was  impressive.  It  reflected  nothing  French,  and  had  little 
more  root  in  present  human  sympathy  than  the  other  paint- 
ing of  the  time.  It  was  cold,  passionless  art  but  after  its 
kind  well  enough  done.  The  drawing  was  correct  if  severe, 
the  composition  agreeable  if  formal,  the  coloring  variegated 
if  violent.  Many  of  his  pictures  have  now  changed  for  the 
worse  in  coloring  owing  to  the  dissipation  of  surface  pigments. 
He  was  the  founder  of  the  classic  and  academic  in  French 
art,  and  in  influence  was  the  most  important  man  of  the  cen- 


FRENCH  PAINTING 


159 


tury.  He  was  especially  strong  in  the  heroic  landscape,  and 
in  this  branch  helped  form  the  rather  coarse  style  of  his 
brother-in-law,  Gaspard  (Dughet)  Poussin  (1613-1675). 

The  landscape  painter  of  the  period,  however,  was  Claude 
Lorrain_(i6oo-i682).  He  differed  from  Poussin  in  making 
Efs  pictures  depend  more  strictly  upon  landscape  than  upon 
figures.     With  both  painters,  the  trees,  mountains,  valleys, 


FIG.    75.  —  MIGNARD.      HOPE.      LOUVRE. 


buildings,  figures,  were  of  the  grand  classic  variety.  Hills 
and  plains,  sylvan  groves,  flowing  streams,  peopled  harbors, 
Ionic  and  Corinthian  temples,  Roman  aqueducts,  mytholog- 
ical groups,  were  the  materials  used,  and  the  object  of  their 
use  was  to  suggest  the  ideal  dwelling-place  of  man  —  the 
former  Garden  of  the  Gods.  Panoramic  and  slightly  theat- 
rical at  times,  Claude's  work  was  not  without  its  poetic  side, 
and  showed  considerable  knowledge  if  only  a  limited  amount 


i6o  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

of  technical  skill.  He  was  a  leader  in  landscape,  the  man  who 
first  painted  real  golden  sunlight  and  shed  its  light  upon  earth. 
There  is  a  soft  summer's-day  drowsiness,  a  golden  haze  of 
atmosphere,  a  feeling  of  composure  and  restfulness  about  his 
pictures.  Like  Poussin  he  depended  much  upon  long  sweep- 
ing lines  in  composition,  and  upon  effects  of  linear  perspective. 
He  was  not  strong  as  a  draftsman  and  his  painting  was  timid 
and  thin. 

COURT  PAINTING :  When  Louis  XIV  came  to  the  throne 
painting  took  on  a  decided  character,  but  it  was  only  super- 
ficially a  national  or  race  character.  In  method  the  French 
painters  followed  the  Bolognese  and  Romans,  and  imitated 
an  imitation;  in  matter  they  bowed  to  the  dictates  of  the 
court  and  reflected  the  king's  bombastic  spirit.  Echoing  the 
court  fashion  of  the  day,  painting  became  pompous,  theat- 
rical, grandiloquent  —  a  beautiful  heap  of  vanities  quite 
devoid  of  cither  sincerity  or  truth.  Lebrun  (1619-1690), 
painter  in  ordinary  to  the  king,  directed  substantially  all  the 
painting  of  the  reign.  He  aimed  at  pleasing  royalty  with 
flattering  allusions  to  Caesarism  and  extravagant  personifica- 
tions of  the  king  as  a  classic  conqueror.  His  art  had  neither 
truth,  nor  genius,  nor  great  skill,  and  so  sought  to  startle 
by  subject  or  size.  Enormous  canvases  of  Alexander's  tri- 
umphs, in  allusion  to  those  of  the  great  Louis,  were  turned  out 
to  order,  and  Versailles  to  this  day  is  tapestried  with  battle- 
pieces  in  which  Louis  poses  as  the  victor.  Considering  the 
amount  of  work  done,  Lebrun  showed  great  fecundity  and 
industry,  but  none  of  it  has  much  more  than  a  mechanical 
ingenuity  about  it.  It  was  rather  original  in  composition 
and  facile  in  handling,  but  weak  in  drawing,  lighting,  and  color- 
ing. Moreover,  its  example  upon  the  painters  of  the  time 
was  pernicious.  Jouvenet  (1644-1717),  De  Troy  (1645-1730), 
and  Antoine  Coypel  with  their  rhetorical  utterances  are  good 
illustrations  of  this. 


FRENCH  PAINTING 


161 


Lebrun's  contemporary,  Le  Sueur  (1616-1655),  was  a  more 
sympathetic  and  sincere  painter,  if  not  a  much  better  techni- 
cian. Both  were  pupils  of  Vouet,  but  Le  Sueur's  art  was 
largely  religious  in  subject,  while  Lebrun's  was  military  and 
monarchical.  Le  Sueur  had  a  feeling  for  his  theme,  but  was  a 
weak  painter,  inclined  to  the  sentimental,  thin  in  coloring, 
and  not  at  all  certain  in  his  drawing.     French  allusions  to 


FIG.    76.  —  LANCRET.      THE  DANCE.      KATSER-FRIEDRICH   MUSEUM,   BERLIN. 


him  as  "the  French  Raphael"  show  more  complacency  than 
correctness.  Sebastian  Bourdon  (1616-1671)  was  another 
painter  of  history,  but  a  little  out  of  the  Lebrun  circle.  He 
was  not,  however,  free  from  the  influence  of  Italy,  where  he 
spent  three  years  studying  the  Eclectics  and  Mannerists. 
His  figure  pictures  signify  little  but  his  portraits  are  usually 
very  good  —  a  statement  that  is  equally  true  of  many  of  the 
academic  painters  of  the  period. 


1 62  HISTORY   OK   PAINTING 

Contemporary  with  these  men  was  a  group  of  portrait- 
painters  who  gained  celebrity  perhaps  as  much  by  their  sitters 
as  by  their  own  powers.  They  were  facile  flatterers  given  over 
to  the  pomps  of  the  reign  and  mirroring  its  absurdities  of 
fashion.  Their  work  has  a  graceful  appearance,  and,  for  its 
time,  it  was  undoubtedly  excellent  if  mannered  portraiture. 
Even  to  this  day  it  has  qualities  of  drawing  and  coloring  to 
commend  it,  and  at  times  one  meets  with  exceptionally  good 
work.  Philip  de  Champaigne  (1602-1674)  was  a  Brussels 
painter  and  Flemish  in  his  technique  but  afterward  became 
French  by  adoption.  He  comes  a  little  ahead  of  the  others 
and  is  a  little  aside  from  the  main  current  —  the  best  portrait 
painter  of  his  time.  Pierre  Mignard  (i6io?-i695)  was  a 
pupil  of  Vouet,  who  studied  in  Rome  and  afterward  returned 
to  France  to  become  the  successful  rival  of  Lebrun.  He  was 
superficial  and  rather  tawdry  in  sentiment  but  a  painter  of 
considerable  skill.  He  was  the  forerunner  of  Largilliere 
( 1 656-1 746)  and  Rigaud  (1 659-1 743)  who  did  the  fashionable 
people  of  the  day  in  all  the  bravery  of  costume  they  could 
command. 

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  PAINTING:  The  painting  of 
Louis  XIV's  time  was  continued  into  the  eighteenth  century 
for  some  fifteen  years  or  more  with  little  change.  With  the 
advent  of  Louis  XV  art  took  upon  itself  another  character, 
and  one  that  reflected  perfectly  the  moral,  social,  and  political 
France  of  the  eighteenth  century.  The  first  Louis  clamored 
for  glory,  the  second  Louis  revelled  in  gayety  and  frivolity. 
This  was  the  difference  between  both  monarchs  and  both 
arts.  The  gay  and  the  coquettish  in  painting  had  already 
been  introduced  by  the  Regent,  himself  a  dilettante  in  art, 
and  when  Louis  XV  came  to  the  throne  it  passed  from  the  gay 
to  the  insipid  and  the  flippant.  Shepherds  and  shepherdesses 
dressed  in  court  silks  and  satins  with  cottony  sheep  beside 
them  posed  in  stage-set  Arcadias,  pretty  gods  and  goddesses 


FRENCH  PAINTING 


163 


reclined  indolently  upon  gossamer  clouds,  and  court  gallants 
lounged  under  artificial  trees  by  artificial  ponds  making  love 
to  pretty  soubrettes  from  the  theatre. 

Yet,  in  spite  of  the  lack  of  moral  and  intellectual  elevation, 
in  spite  of  frivolity  and  make-believe,  this  art  was  infinitely 
better  than  the  pompous  imitation  of  foreign  example  set  up 
by  Louis  XIV.  It  was  more  spontaneous,  more  original,  more 
French.  The  influence 
of  Italy  began  to  fail, 
and  the  painters  began 
to  mirror  French  life. 
It  was  largely  court  life, 
lively,  vivacious,  licen- 
tious, but  in  that  very 
respect  characteristic  of 
the  time.  Moreover, 
there  was  another  qual- 
ity about  it  that  showed 
French  taste  at  its  best 
— the  decorative  quality. 
It  can  hardly  be  sup- 
posed that  the  fairy 
creations  of  the  age  were 
intended  to  represent 
actual  nature.  They 
were  designed  to  orna- 
ment hall  and  boudoir,  and  in  pure  decorative  delicacy  of 
design,  lightness  of  touch,  color  charm,  they  have  never 
been  excelled.  The  serious  spirit  was  lacking,  but  the  gayety 
of  line  and  color  was  well  given.  As  decorative  art  it  is  serious 
enough  and  also  sincere  enough. 

The  turning  of  the  tide  was  noticeable  in  the  slighter,  more 
mobile  figures  shown  in  the  work  of  such  Lebrun  successors 
as  Le  Moyne,  Natoire  and  Carle  van  Loo,  and  the  full  flood  of 


FIG.    77.  —  VAN   LOO.      PORTRAIT   OF   MARIE 
LECZINSKI.     LOUVRE. 


1 64  HISTORY   OF   PAINTING 

it  was  to  show  in  Boucher;  but  before  that  came  about  a 
lighter  spirit  in  art  appeared  in  the  work  of  a  most  distinguished 
painter,  Antoine  Watteau  (16S4-1721).  He  was  the  painter 
chiefly  responsible  for  the  coquette  and  soubrette  of  French 
art,  and  he  was,  practically  speaking,  among  the  very  first 
(if  the  latter-day  French  painters.  His  subjects  were  trifling 
bits  of  fashionable  love-making,  scenes  from  the  opera,  fetes, 
balls,  and  the  like.  All  his  characters  played  at  life  in  parks 
and  groves  that  never  grew,  and  most  of  his  color  was  beau- 
tifully unreal;  but  for  all  that  the  work  was  original,  decora- 
tive, and  charming.  Moreover,  Watteau  was  a  brushman, 
and  introduced  not  only  a  new  spirit  and  new  subject  into  art, 
but  a  new  method.  The  epic  treatment  of  the  Italians  was 
laid  aside  in  favor  of  a  genre  treatment,  and  instead  of  line 
and  flat  surface  Watteau  introduced  color  and  cleverly  laid 
pigment.  He  was  a  brilliant  painter;  not  a  great  man  in 
thought  or  imagination,  but  one  of  fancy,  delicacy,  and  skill. 
Unfortunately  he  set  a  bad  example  by  his  gay  subjects,  and 
those  who  came  after  him  carried  his  gayety  and  lightness  of 
spirit  into  exaggeration.  Watteau's  best  pupils  were  Lancret 
(1690-1743)  and  Pater  (1695-1736),  who  painted  in  his  style 
with  sometimes  excellent  results.  Contemporary  with  them 
came  Nattier  (1685-1766),  the  most  brilliant  and  facile  por- 
trait-painter of  the  time,  and  Tocque  (1696-1772),  who  painted 
the  excellent  portrait  of  Marie  Leczinski,  now  in  the  Louvre. 
After  these  men  came  Boucher  (1703-17 70),  who  turned 
Watteau's  charming  fetes,  showing  the  costumes  and  manners 
of  the  Regency,  into  extravagance.  Not  only  was  the  moral 
tone  and  intellectual  stamina  of  his  art  far  below  that  of 
Watteau,  but  his  workmanship  was  less  sincere.  Boucher 
possessed  a  remarkable  facility  of  hand  and  a  keen  decorative 
color-sense;  but  after  a  time  these  became  stereotyped  and 
mannered.  Drawing  and  modelling  were  neglected,  light  was 
wholly  conventional,  and  landscape  turned  into'  a  piece  of 


FRENCH  PAINTING 


165 


embroidered  background  with  a  Dresden-china,  tapestry 
effect  about  it.  As  decoration  the  general  effect  was  excel- 
lent, as  a  serious  expression  of  life  it  was  very  weak,  as  an 
intellectual  or  moral  force  it  was  worse  than  worthless.  Yet 
as  David  expressed  it:   "It  is  not  given  to  every  one  to  be  a 


FIG.    78. —  GREUZE.      VILLAGE   BRIDE    (DETAIL).      LOUVRE. 

Boucher."  Fragonard  (1 732-1806)  followed  in  a  similar  style, 
and  was  even  more  clever  in  his  way  than  Boucher.  His 
spirit,  and  at  times  his  abandon,  are  delightful,  and  his  skill 
is  often  extraordinary.  He  was  a  vivacious  soul  with  a 
wonderful  sense  for  refined  color  and  graceful  movement. 

A  few  painters  in  the  time  of  Louis  XV  remained  appar- 
ently unaffected  by  the  court  influence,  and  stand  in  con- 


166  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

spicuous  isolation.  Claude  Joseph  Vernet  (i 714-1789)  was 
a  landscape  and  marine  painter  of  some  repute  in  his  time. 
He  had  a  sense  of  the  pictorial,  but  not  a  remarkable  sense  of 
the  truthful  in  nature.  His  landscape  was  of  the  classic 
Roman  variety,  and  later  on  the  classic  Roman  buildings 
appealed  to  Hubert  Robert  (1733-180S),  a  landscape  painter 
of  ruins  with  an  eye  for  color,  light,  and  atmosphere.  Chardin 
(1690-1779)  and  Greuze  (1 725-1805)  clung  to  portrayals 
of  humble  life  and  sought  to  popularize  the  intimate  subject. 
Chardin  was  hardly  appreciated  by  the  people  of  his  time. 
His  frank  realism,  his  absolute  sincerity  of  purpose,  his  play 
of  light  and  its  effect  upon  color,  and  his  charming  handling  of 
surfaces  were  comparatively  unnoticed.  Yet  as  a  colorist 
he  may  be  ranked  second  to  none  in  French  art,  and  in  fresh- 
ness of  handling  his  work  is  a  model  for  present-day  painters. 
Diderot  early  recognized  Chardin's  excellence,  and  many 
artists  since  his  day  have  admired  his  pictures;  but  he  is  not 
now  a  well-known  or  popular  painter.  The  populace  fancies 
Greuze  and  his  sentimental  heads  of  young  girls.  They  have 
a  prettiness  about  them  that  is  attractive,  but  as  art  they 
lack  in  force,  and  in  workmanship  they  are  too  smooth,  finical, 
and  thin  in  handling. 

EXTANT  WORKS:  All  of  these  French  painters  are  best  repre- 
sented in  the  Louvre  and  other  municipal  galleries  of  France.  Some 
of  the  European  galleries,  like  the  Dresden,  Berlin,  and  National  at 
London,  have  examples  of  their  work;  but  the  masterpieces  are  still 
with  the  French  people. 


CHAPTER   XIII 
FRENCH   PAINTING 

THE   NINETEENTH   CENTURY 

Books  Recommended:  As  before,  Hourticq,  Stranahan, 
et  al.;  also  Benoit,  VArt  franqais  sous  la  Revolution  et  VEm- 
pire;  Bigot,  Peintres  franqais  contemporains;  Brownell, 
French  Art;  Burty,  Maitres  et  Petit-Maitres;  Chesneau, 
Peinture  franqaise  au  XIXme  Siecle;  Clement,  Etudes  sur  les 
Beaux  Arts  en  France;  Prudhon;  David,  Le  peintre  Louis 
David;  Ingres;  Delaborde,  (Euvre  de  Paul  Delaroche;  Delecluze, 
Jacques  Louis  David,  son  Ecole,  et  son  Temps;  Gautier,  VArt 
Moderne;  Roynanticisme;  Gonse,  Eugene  Fromentin;  Hamer- 
ton,  Contemporary  French  Painting;  Painting  in  France  after 
the  Decline  of  Classicism;  MacColl,  Art  in  Nineteenth  Century; 
Marcel,  La  Peinture  franqaise;  Merson,  Ingres,  sa  Vie  et 
son  CEnvre;  Montrond,  H.  Flandrin;  Moreau,  Decamps  et  son 
(Euvre;  Planche,  Etudes  sur  VEcole  franqaise;  Robaut  et 
Chesneau,  UCEuvre  complet  d'Eugene  Delacroix;  Rosenthal, 
La  Peinture  romantique;  Silvestre,  Histoire  des  Artistes  vivants 
et  etr angers;  Strahan,  Modern  French  Art;  Thore,  VArt 
contemporain. 

THE  REVOLUTIONARY  TIME:  In  considering  this  cen- 
tury's art  in  Europe,  it  must  be  remembered  that  a  great  social 
and  intellectual  change  had  taken  place  since  the  days  of 
the  Medici.  The  power  so  long  pent  up  in  Italy  during  the 
Renaissance  finally  broke  and  scattered  itself  upon  the  north- 
ern and  western  nations;  societies  and  states  were  torn  down 
and  rebuilded,  political,  social,  and  religious  ideas  shifted 
into  new  garbs;  the  old  order  passed  away. 


1 68  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

Religion  as  an  art-motive,  or  even  as  an  art-subject,  ceased 
to  obtain  anywhere,  except  sporadically.  The  Church  failed 
as  an  art-patron,  and  the  walls  of  cloister  and  cathedral  fur- 
nished no  new  Bible  readings  to  the  unlettered.  Painting,  from 
being  a  necessity  of  religious  life,  passed  into  a  luxury;  and 
the  king,  the  state,  or  the  private  collector  became  the  patron. 
History,  romance,  nature,  and  actual  life  were  about  the  only 
sources  left  from  which  art  could  draw  its  materials.  These 
have  been  freely  used,  but  not  so  much  in  a  racial  as  in  an 
individual  manner.  The  tendency  to-day  is  not  so  much  to 
put  forth  a  universal  conception  as  an  individual  belief.  In- 
dividualism —  the  same  quality  that  appeared  so  strongly 
in  Michelangelo's  art  —  has  become  a  keynote  in  modern 
work.  It  is  not  the  only  kind  of  art  that  has  been  shown  in 
this  century,  nor  is  nature  and  romance  the  only  themes  from 
which  art  has  been  derived.  We  must  remember  and  consider 
the  influence  of  the  past  upon  modern  men,  and  the  attempts 
to  restore  the  classic  beauty  of  the  Greek,  Roman,  and  Italian, 
wThich  practically  ruled  French  painting  in  the  first  part  of 
this  century. 

FRENCH  CLASSICISM  OF  DAVID :  This  was  a  revival  of 
Greek  form  in  art,  founded  on  tfie  belief  expressed  by  Winckel- 
mann,  that  beauty  lay  in  form,  and  was  best  shown  by  the 
ancient  Greeks.  It  was  the  objective  view  of  art  which  saw 
beauty  in  externals  and  tolerated  no  individuality  in  the 
artist  except  that  which  was  shown  in  technical  skill.  It 
was,  in  French  painting,  little  more  than  an  imitation  of  the 
Greek  and  Roman  marbles  as  types,  with  insistence  upon 
perfect  proportions,  correct  drawing,  and  balanced  composi- 
tion. In  theme  and  spirit  it  was  pseudo-heroic,  the  incidents 
of  Greek  and  Roman  history  forming  the  chief  subjects,  and 
in  method  it  rather  despised  color,  light-and-shade,  and  natural 
surroundings.  It  was  elevated,  lofty,  ideal  in  aspiration, 
but  coldly  unsympathetic  because  lacking  in  contemporary 


FRENCH  PAINTING 


169 


interest;  and,  though  correct  enough  in  classic  form,  was 
lacking  in  the  classic  spirit.  Like  all  reanimated  art,  it  was 
derivative  and  wanting  in  spontaneity.  The  reason  for  the 
existence  of  Greek  art  died  with  its  civilization,  and  those, 
like  the  French  classicists,  who  sought  to  revive  it,  brought  a 


FIG.    79.  —  DAVID.      PIUS   VII.      LOUVRE. 


copy  of    the  past  into  the  present,  expecting    the  world    to 
accept  it. 

There  was  some  social,  and  perhaps  artistic,  reason,  how- 
ever, for  the  revival  of  the  classic  in  the  French  art  of  the  late 
eighteenth  century.  It  was  a  revolt,  and  at  that  time  revolts 
were  popular.  The  art  of  Boucher  and  his  contemporaries 
had  become  quite  unbearable.  It  was  flippant,  careless, 
licentious.     It  had  no  seriousness  or  dignity  about  it.     More- 


170  HISTORY   OF   PAINTING 

over,  it  smacked  of  the  Bourbon  monarchy,  which  people 
had  come  to  hate.  Classicism  was  severe,  elevated,  respect- 
able at  least,  and  had  the  air  of  the  heroic  republic  about  it. 
It  was  a  return  to  a  sterner  view  of  life,  with  the  martial 
spirit  behind  it  as  an  impetus,  and  naturally  it  had  a  great 
vogue.  For  many  years  during  the  Revolution,  the  Consulate, 
and  the  Empire,  classicism  was  accepted  and  to  this  day  it 
lives  in  a  modified  form  in  that  semi-classic  work  known  as 
academic  art. 

THE  CLASSIC  SCHOOL:  Vien  (1716-1809)  was  the  first 
painter  to  protest  against  the  art  of  Boucher  by  advocating 
more  nobility  of  form  and  a  closer  study  of  nature.  He  was, 
however,  more  devoted  to  the  antique  forms  he  had  studied  in 
Rome  than  to  nature.  In  subject  and  line  his  tendency  was 
classic,  with  a  leaning  toward  the  Italians  of  the  Decadence. 
He  lacked  the  power  to  carry  out  a  complete  reform  in  paint- 
ing, but  his  pupil  David  (1 748-1825)  finished  what  he  had 
begun.  It  was  David  who  established  the  reign  of  classicism, 
and  by  native  force  became  the  leader.  The  time  was  appro- 
priate, the  Revolution  called  for  pictures  of  Romulus,  Brutus, 
and  Achilles,  and  Napoleon  encouraged  the  heroic  theme. 
David  had  studied  the  marbles  at  Rome,  and  he  used  them 
largely  for  models,  reproducing  scenes  from  Greek  and  Roman 
life  in  an  elevated  and  sculpturesque  style,  with  much  archaeo- 
logical knowledge  and  a  great  deal  of  skill.  In  color,  relief, 
sentiment,  individuality,  his  painting  was  lacking.  He  de- 
spised all  that.  The  rhythm  of  line,  the  balance  of  composed 
groups,  the  heroic  subject  and  the  classic  treatment,  made  up 
his  art.  It  was  thoroughly  objective,  and  what  contemporary 
interest  it  possessed  lay  largely  in  the  martial  spirit  then 
prevalent.  Of  course  it  was  upheld  by  the  Institute,  and  it 
really  set  the  pace  for  French  painting  for  nearly  half  a  century. 
When  David  was  called  upon  to  paint  Napoleonic  pictures  he 
painted  them  under  protest,  and  yet  these,  with  his  portraits, 


FRENCH  PAINTING 


171 


constituted  his  best  work.    In  portraiture  he  was  uncommonly 
strong  at  times. 

After  the  Restoration  David,  who  had  been  a  revolutionist, 
and  then  an  adherent  of  Napoleon,  was  sent  into  exile;  but 
the  influence  he  had  left  and  the  school  he  had  established 
were  carried  on  by  his  contemporaries  and  pupils.     Of  the 


FIG.   80.  —  INGRES.      OZDEPUS   AND  SPHINX.      LOUVRE. 

former  Regnault  (1 754-1829),  Vincent  (1 746-1816),  and  Prud- 
hon  (1758-1823)  were  the  most  conspicuous.  The  last  one 
was  considered  as  out  of  the  classic  circle,  but  so  far  as  making 
his  art  depend  upon  drawing  and  composition,  he  was  a  gen- 
uine classicist.  His  subjects,  instead  of  being  heroic,  inclined 
to  the  mythological  and  the  allegorical.  In  Italy  he  had  been 
a  student  of  the  Renaissance  painters,  and  from  them  borrowed 
a  method  of  shadow  gradation  that  rendered  his  figures  misty 


172  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

and  phantom-like.  They  possessed  an  ease  of  movement 
sometimes  called  "  Prudhonesque  grace,"  and  in  composition 
were  well  placed  and  effective. 

Of  David's  pupils  there  were  many.  Only  a  few  of  them, 
however,  had  pronounced  ability,  and  even  these  carried 
David's  methods  into  the  theatrical.  Girodet  (i 767-1824)  was 
a  draftsman  of  considerable  power,  but  with  poor  taste  in 
color  and  little  repose  in  composition.  Most  of  his  work  was 
exaggerated  and  strained  in  effect.  Lethiere  (1760-183 2) 
and  Guerin  (1 774-1833),  pupils  of  Regnault,  were  painters 
akin  to  Girodet,  but  inferior  to  him.  Gerard  (1770-183 7) 
was  a  weak  David  follower,  who  gained  some  celebrity  by 
painting  portraits  of  famous  men  and  women.  The  two 
pupils  of  David  who  brought  him  the  most  credit  were  Ingres 
(1780-1867)  and  Gros  (1771-1835).  Ingres  was  a  cold,  per- 
severing man,  whose  principles  had  been  well  settled  by  David 
early  in  life,  and  were  adhered  to  with  conviction  by  the  pupil 
to  the  last.  He  modified  the  classic  subject  somewhat,  studied 
Raphael  and  the  Italians,  and  reintroduced  the  single  figure 
into  art  (the  Source,  and  the  Odalisque,  for  examples).  For 
color  he  had  no  fancy.  "In  nature  all  is  form,"  he  used  to 
say.  Painting  he  thought  not  an  independent  art,  but  "a 
development  of  sculpture."  To  consider  emotion,  color,  or 
light  as  the  equal  of  form  was  monstrous,  and  to  compare 
Rembrandt  with  Raphael  was  blasphemy.  To  this  belief 
he  clung  to  the  end,  faithfully  reproducing  the  human  figure, 
and  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  eventually  he  became 
a  learned  draftsman.  His  single  figures  and  his  portraits 
show  him  to  the  best  advantage.  He  had  a  strong  grasp  of 
modelling  and  an  artistic  sense  of  the  beauty  and  dignity  of 
line  not  excelled  by  any  artist  of  the  century.  And  to  him 
more  than  any  other  painter  is  due  the  cultured  drafts- 
manship which  is  to-day  the  just  pride  of  the  modern  French 
school. 


FRENCH  PAINTING 


173 


Gros  was  a  more  vacillating  man,  and  by  reason  of  for- 
saking the  classic  subject  for  Napoleonic  battle-pieces,  he 
unconsciously  led  the  way  toward  romanticism.  He  excelled 
as  a  draftsman,  but  when  he  came  to  paint   the  Field  of 


FIG.  8l.  —  GERARD.   MME  RECAMIER.   LOUVRE. 

Eylau  and  the  Pest  of  Jaffa  he  mingled  color,  light,  air,  move- 
ment, action,  sacrificing  classic  composition  and  repose  to 
romantic  reality.  This  was  heresy  from  the  Davidian  point 
of  view,  and  David  eventually  convinced  him  of  it.  Gros 
returned  to  the  classic  theme  and  treatment,  but  soon  after 
was  so  reviled  by  the  changing  criticism  of  the  time  that  he 


174 


HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 


committed  suicide  in  the  Seine.     His  art,  however,  was  the 
beginning  of  romanticism. 

The  landscape  painting  of  this  time  was  also  academic 
and  unsympathetic.  It  was  a  continuation  of  the  Claude- 
Poussin  tradition,  and  in  its  insistence  upon  line,  grandeur 
of  space,  and  imposing  trees  and  mountains,  was  a  fit  com-  , 
panion  to  the  classic  figure-piece.  It  had  little  basis  in  nature, 
and  little  in  color  or  feeling  to  commend  it.  Watelet  (1780- 
1866),  Bertin  (1775-1842),  Michallon  (1796-1822),  and  Aligny 
(1 798-1871),  were  its  exponents. 

A  few  painters  seemed  to  stand  a  little  apart  from  the  con- 
temporary schools.  Madame  Vigee-Lebrun  (1755-1842),  a 
successful  portrait-painter  of  nobility,  really  belongs  further 
back  with  the  pre-Revolutionary  painters  and  Horace  Vernet 
( 1 789-1 863),  a  popular  battle-painter,  many  of  whose  works 
are  to  be  seen  at  Versailles,  was  influenced  by  the  Napoleonic 
regime  and  also  by  romanticism. 

ROMANTICISM :  The  movement  in  French  painting  which 
began  about  1822  and  took  the  name  of  Romanticism  was 
but  a  part  of  the  "  storm-and-stress "  that  swept  Germany, 
England,  and  France  at  the  beginning  of  this  century,  appear- 
ing first  in  literature  and  afterward  in  art.  It  had  its  origin 
in  a  discontent  with  the  present,  a  passionate  yearning  for 
the  unattainable,  an  intensity  of  sentiment,  sad,  melancholy 
imaginings,  and  a  desire  to  express  the  inexpressible.  It 
was  emphatically  subjective,  self-conscious,  a  mood  of  mind 
or  a  feeling.  In  this  respect  it  was  diametrically  opposed  to 
the  academic  and  the  classic.  In  French  painting  it  came 
forward  in  opposition  to  the  classicism  of  David.  People 
had  begun  to  weary  of  Greek  and  Roman  heroes  and 
their  deeds  and  of  impersonal  line-bounded  statuesque 
art.  There  was  a  demand  for  something  more  representa- 
tive, spontaneous,  expressive  of  the  intense  feeling  of  the 
time.    The  very  gist  of  romanticism  was  passion,  and  free- 


FRENCH   PAINTING 


175 


dom  to  express  itself  in  what  form  it  would  was  a  condition 
of  its  existence. 

The  classic  subject  was  abandoned  by  the  romanticists 
for  dramatic  scenes  of  mediaeval  and  modern  times.  The 
romantic  hero  and  heroine  in  scenes  of  horror,  perils  by  land 
and  sea,  flame  and  fury,  love  and  anguish,  came  upon  the 
boards.  Much  of  this  was  illustration  of  history,  the  novel, 
and  poetry,  especially  the  poetry  of  Goethe,  Byron,  and  Scott. 


FIG.    82.  —  GERICAULT.      THE   RACE. 


Line  was  slurred  in  favor  of  color,  symmetrical  composition 
gave  way  to  wild  disordered  groups  in  headlong  action,  and 
atmospheres,  skies,  and  lights  were  twisted  and  distorted  to 
convey  the  sentiment  of  the  story.  It  was  thus,  more  by 
suggestion  than  realization,  that  romanticism  sought  to  give 
the  poetic  sentiment  of  life.  Its  attitude  toward  classicism 
was  antagonistic,  a  rebound,  a  flying  to  the  other  extreme. 
One  virtually  said  that  beauty  was  in  the  Greek  form,  the 
other  that  it  was  in  the  painter's  emotional  nature.     The 


176  HISTORY   OF   PAINTING 

disagreement  was  violent,  and  out  of  it  grew  the  so-called 
romantic  quarrel  of  the  1820's. 

LEADERS  OF  ROMANTICISM:  Symptoms  of  the  coming 
movement  were  apparent  long  before  any  open  revolt.  Gros 
had  made  innovations  on  the  classic  in  his  battle-pieces, 
but  the  first  positive  dissent  from  classic  teachings  was  made 
in  the  Salon  of  1819  by  Gericault  (1 791-1824)  with  his  Raft 
of  the  Medusa.  It  represented  the  starving,  the  dead,  and 
the  dying  of  the  Medusa's  crew  on  a  raft  in  mid-ocean.  The 
subject  was  not  classic.  It  was  literary,  romantic,  dramatic, 
almost  theatrical  in  its  seizing  of  the  critical  moment.  Its 
theme  was  restless,  harrowing,  horrible.  It  met  with  instant 
opposition  from  the  old  men  and  applause  from  the  young 
men.  It  was  the  trumpet-note  of  the  revolt,  but  Gericault 
did  not  live  long  enough  to  become  the  leader  of  romanticism. 
That  position  fell  to  his  contemporary  and  fellow-pupil, 
Delacroix  (1 798-1863).  It  was  in  1822  that  Delacroix's  first 
Salon  picture  (the  Dante  and  Virgil)  appeared.  It  was  a 
strange,  ghost-like  scene  from  Dante's  Inferno,  with  the  black 
atmosphere  of  the  nether  world,  weird  faces,  weird  colors, 
weird  flames,  and  a  modelling  of  the  figures  by  patches  of 
color  almost  savage  as  compared  to  the  tinted  drawing  of 
classicism.  Delacroix's  youth  saved  the  picture  from  con- 
demnation, but  it  was  different  with  his  Massacre  of  Scio  two 
years  later.  This  was  decried  by  the  classicists,  and  even 
Gros  called  it  "  the  massacre  of  art."  The  painter  was  accused 
of  establishing  the  worship  of  the  ugly,  he  was  no  drafts- 
man, had  no  selection,  no  severity,  nothing  but  brutality. 
But  Delacroix  was  as  obstinate  as  Ingres,  and  declared  that 
the  whole  world  could  not  prevent  him  from  seeing  and  paint- 
ing things  in  his  own  way.  It  was  thus  the  quarrel  started, 
the  young  men  siding  with  Delacroix,  the  older  men  following 
David  and  Ingres. 

In  himself  Delacroix  embodied  all  that  was  best  and  strong- 


FRENCH   PAINTING 


177 


est  in  the  romantic  movement.  His  painting  was  intended  to 
convey  a  romantic  mood  of  mind  by  combinations  of  color, 
light,  air,  and  the  like.  In  subject  it  was  tragic  and  pas- 
sionate, like  the  poetry  of  Hugo,  Byron,   and  Scott.     The 


FIG.   83. 


DELACROIX.      MASSACRE   OF   SCIO.      LOUVRE. 


figures  were  usually  given  with  anguish-wrung  brows,  wild 
eyes,  dishevelled  hair,  and  impetuous,  contorted  action.  The 
painter  never  cared  for  minute  details,  seeking  always  to  gain 
the  effect  of  the  whole  rather  than  the  exactness  of  the  part. 
He  purposely  slurred  drawing  at  times,  and  was  opposed  to 
formal  composition.     In  color  he  was  excellent,  though  some- 


178  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

what  violent  at  times,  and  in  brush-work  he  was  often  labored 
and  patchy.  His  strength  lay  in  imagination  displayed  in 
color  and  in  action. 

The  quarrel  between  classicism  and  romanticism  lasted 
some  years,  with  neither  side  victorious.  Delacroix  won 
recognition  for  his  view  of  art,  but  did  not  crush  the  belief  in 
form  which  was  to  come  to  the  surface  again.  He  fought 
almost  alone.  Many  painters  rallied  around  him,  but  they 
added  little  strength  to  the  new  movement.  Deveria  (1805- 
1865)  and  Champmartin  (1 797-1883)  were  highly  thought  of 
at  first,  but  rapidly  degenerated.  Sigalon  (1788-183 7),  Co- 
gniet  (1 794-1880),  Robert-Fleury  (1797-  1890),  and  Boulanger 
( 1 806-1 867)  were  romanticists  after  a  fashion,  but  achieved 
more  as  teachers  than  as  painters.  Delaroche  (1 797-1856) 
was  an  eclectic  —  in  fact,  founded  a  school  of  that  name  — 
thinking  to  take  what  was  best  from  both  parties.  Invent- 
ing nothing,  he  profited  by  all  invented.  He  employed  the 
romantic  subject  and  color,  but  adhered  to  classic  drawing. 
His  composition  was  good,  his  costume  careful  in  detail,  his 
brush-work  smooth,  and  his  story-telling  capacity  excellent. 
All  these  qualities  made  him  a  popular  painter,  but  not  an 
original  or  powerful  one.  Ary  Schefifer  (1 797-1858)  was  an 
illustrator  of  Goethe  and  Byron,  frail  in  both  sentiment  and 
color,  a  painter  who  started  as  a  romanticist,  but  afterward 
developed  some  feeling  for  line  under  Ingres. 

THE  ORIENTALISTS:  In  both  literature  and  painting  one 
phase  of  romanticism  showed  itself  in  a  love  for  the  life,  the 
light,  the  color  of  the  Orient.  From  Paris  Decamps  (1803- 
1860)  was  the  first  painter  to  visit  the  East  and  paint  Eastern 
life.  He  was  a  genre  painter  more  than  a  figure  painter, 
giving  naturalistic  street  scenes  in  Turkey  and  Asia  Minor, 
interiors  and  courts,  with  great  feeling  for  air,  warmth  of 
color,  and  light.  He  seems  to  have  been  influenced  by  Rem- 
brandt's scheme  of  light  and  Chardin's  painting  of  surfaces. 


FRENCH  PAINTING 


179 


At  about  the  same  time  Marilhat  (1811-1847)  was  in  Egypt 
picturing  the  life  of  that  country  in  a  similar  but  slighter 


FIG.   84.  —  FROMENTEST.      HORSES   AT  A   FORD. 


manner;  and  later,  Fromentin  (1820-1876),  painter  and  writer, 
following  Delacroix,  went  to  Algiers  and  portrayed  there  Arab 
life  with  fast-flying  horses,  the  desert  air,  sky,  light,  and  color. 


I  So  HISTORY   OF    PAINTINO 

Isabey  and  Ziem  belong  further  on  in  the  century,  but  were  no 
less  exponents  of  romanticism  in  their  richly  colored  Venetian 
works. 

Fifteen  years  after  the  starting  of  romanticism  the  move- 
ment had  materially  subsided.  It  had  never  been  a  school 
in  the  sense  of  having  rules  and  laws  of  art.  Liberty  of 
thought  and  perfect  freedom  for  individual  expression  were 
all  it  advocated.  As  a  result  there  was  no  unity,  for  there 
was  nothing  to  unite  upon;  and  with  every  painter  paint- 
ing as  he  pleased,  regardless  of  law,  extravagance  was  inevi- 
table. This  was  the  case,  and  when  the  next  generation  came 
in  romanticism  began  to  be  ridiculed  for  its  excesses.  A  reac- 
tion started  in  favor  of  more  line  and  academic  training.  This 
was  first  shown  by  the  students  of  Delaroche,  though  there 
were  a  number  of  movements  at  the  time,  all  of  them  leading 
away  from  romanticism.  A  recoil  from  too  much  color  in 
favor  of  more  form  was  inevitable,  but  romanticism  was  not 
to  perish  entirely.  Its  influence  was  to  go  on,  and  to  appear 
in  the  work  of  later  men,  especially  the  landscape  painters. 

ECLECTICS  AND  TRANSITIONAL  PAINTERS :  After  Ingres 
his  follower  Flandrin  (i 809-1864)  was  the  most  consid- 
erable draftsman  of  the  time.  He  was  not  exclusively  classic 
but  rather  religious  in  subject,  and  is  sometimes  called 
"the  religious  painter  of  France."  He  had  a  delicate  beauty 
of  line  and  a  fine  feeling  for  form,  but  never  was  strong  in 
color,  brush-work,  or  sentiment.  His  best  work  appears  in 
his  very  fine  portraits.  Gleyre  (1806-1874)  was  a  man  of 
classic  methods,  but  romantic  tastes,  who  modified  the  heroic 
into  the  idyllic  and  mythologic.  In  theme  he  was  a  senti- 
mental day-dreamer,  with  a  touch  of  melancholy  about  the 
vanished  past,  appearing  in  Arcadian  fancies,  pretty  nymphs, 
and  idealized  memories  of  youth.  In  execution  he  was  not 
at  all  romantic.  His  color  was  pale,  his  drawing  delicate,  and 
his  lighting   misty   and   uncertain.     It  was  the  etherealized 


FRENCH   PAINTING  181 

classic  method,  and  this  method  he  transmitted  to  a  little 
band  of  painters  called  the 

NEW-GREEKS,  who,  in  point  of  time,  belong  much  further 
along  in  the  century,  but  in  their  art  are  with  Gleyre.  Their 
work  never  rose  above  the  idyllic  and  the  graceful,  and  calls 
for  no  special  mention.  Hamon  (1821-1874)  and  Aubert 
(1824-)  belonged  to  the  band,  and  Gerome  was  at  one  time 
its  leader,  but  he  afterward  emerged  from  it  to  a  different 
place  in  French  art,  where  he  will  find  mention  hereafter. 

Couture  (181 5-1879)  stood  quite  by  himself,  a  mingling  of 
several  influences.  His  chief  picture,  The  Romans  of  the 
Decadence,  is  classic  in  subject,  romantic  in  sentiment  (and 
this  very  largely  expressed  by  warmth  of  color),  and  rather 
realistic  in  natural  appearance.  He  was  an  eclectic  in  a  way, 
and  yet  seems  to  stand  as  the  forerunner  of  a  large  body  of 
artists  who  find  classification  hereafter  under  the  title  of  the 
Semi-Classicists. 

EXTANT  WORKS:  All  the  painters  mentioned  in  this  chapter 
are  best  represented  in  the  Louvre  at  Paris,  at  Versailles,  and  in  the 
museums  of  the  chief  French  cities.  Some  works  of  the  late  men 
may  be  found  in  the  Luxembourg,  where  pictures  bought  by  the  state 
are  kept  for  ten  years  after  the  painter's  death,  and  then  are  either 
sent  to  the  Louvre  or  to  the  other  municipal  galleries  of  France. 
Some  pictures  by  these  men  are  also  to  be  seen  in  the  Metropolitan 
Museum,  New  York,  the  Boston  Museum,  and  the  Chicago  Art 
Institute. 


CHAPTER   XIV 
FRENCH   PAINTING 

THE   NINETEENTH   CENTURY  —  CONTINUED 

Books  Recommended:  The  books  before  mentioned,  con- 
sult also  General  Bibliography,  and  Bigot,  Peintres  contcm- 
porains;  Breton,  La  Vie  d'un  Artiste;  Burty,  Theodore  Rous- 
seau, paysagiste;  Claretie,  Peintres  et  sculpteurs  contemporains; 
Dumesnil,  Constant  Troyon;  Duret,  Les  Peintres  francais  en 
i86j;  Gensel,  Corot  und  Troyon;  Millet  und  Rousseau;  Henley, 
Memorial  Catalogue  of  French  and  Dutch  Loan  Collection  (1886) ; 
Henriet,  Charles  Daubigny  et  son  oeuvre;  Michel,  La  Foret 
de  Fonlalncbleau;  Les  Maitres  du  Pay  sage;  Robaut,  Corot; 
Sensier,  Life  and  Works  of  J.  F.  Millet;  Theodore  Rousseau; 
Thomson,  The  Barbizon  School;  Van  Dyke,  Modern  French 
Masters;   Yriarte,  Jean  Franqois  Millet. 

THE  LANDSCAPE  PAINTERS:  The  influence  of  either  the 
classic  or  romantic  example  may  be  traced  in  almost  all  of 
the  French  painting  of  the  nineteenth  century.  The  opposed 
teachings  found  representatives  in  new  men,  and  under  dif- 
ferent names  the  modified  dispute  went  on  —  the  dispute  of 
the  academic  versus  the  individual,  the  art  of  form  and  line 
versus  the  art  of  sentiment  and  color.  It  continues  even  to 
this  day.  Delacroix  finds  a  follower  in  such  impressionists 
as  Renoir  just  as  truly  as  Ingres  lives  again  in  Degas.  Oppos- 
ing views  have  been  much  moderated  but  not  abandoned. 
Nor  has  continuity  been  lost.  There  is  always  something  of 
the  past  in  the  present.     The  new  comes  out  of  the  old. 

With  the  classicism  of  David  not  only  the  figure,  but  the 
landscape  setting  of  it,   took  on  an  ideal  heroic  character. 


FRENCH  PAINTING 


183 


Trees  and  hills  and  rivers  became  supernaturally  grand  and 
impressive.  Everything  was  elevated  by  method  to  produce 
an  imaginary  Arcadia  fit  for  the  deities  of  the  classic  world. 
The  result  was  that  nature  and  the  humanity  of  the  painter 
passed  out  in  favor  of  school  formula  and  academic  tradi- 
tions. Such  was  the  landscape  art  of  Bertin,  Aligny,  Michal- 
lon.  It  was  very  grand,  very  classic  but  not  very  true.  When 
romanticism  came  in  this  was  changed,  but  nature  falsified 


FIG.   85.  —  COROT.      LANDSCAPE. 

in  another  direction.  Landscape  was  given  an  interest  in 
human  affairs,  and  made  to  look  gay  or  sad,  peaceful  or  turbu- 
lent, as  the  day  went  well  or  ill  with  the  hero  of  the  story 
portrayed.  It  was,  however,  truer  to  the  actual  than  the 
classic,  more  studied  in  the  parts,  more  united  in  the  whole. 
About  the  year  1830  the  influence  of  romanticism  began  to 
show  in  a  new,  or  at  least  different,  landscape  art.  That  is  to 
say,  the  emotional  impulse  springing  from  romanticism,  com- 
bined with  the  study  of  the  old  Dutch  landscapists,  set  a  large 
number  of  painters  to  the  close  study  of  nature.     Even  before 


1S4  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

this  took  place  there  were  signs  of  an  approaching  change. 
Georges  Michel  (i 763-1842)  was  painting  mournful  romantic 
landscapes  with  a  coarse  but  broad  brush  and  showing  realistic 
tendencies  therein,  and  after  him  Paul  Huet  (1804-1860)  was 
a  pronounced  nature  student  in  his  tragic  storm-swept  land- 
scapes. Others,  however,  like  Cabat  (1S1 2-1893),  ne^  ^ast 
to  the  classic  ideal  in  landscape  of  Poussin,  while  Delaberge 
(1807-1842)  lost  himself  in  an  over-conscientious  follow- 
ing of  minute  nature.  The  ultimate  landscape  outcome  of 
romanticism,  howTever,  appeared  in  the  work  of  a  group  of 
painters  vaguely  known  as  the 

FONTAINEBLEAU-BARBIZON  SCHOOL:  This  whole  school 
was  primarily  devoted  to  showing  the  sentiment  of  color  and 
light.  It  took  nature  just  as  it  found  it  in  the  forest  of 
Fontainebleau,  on  the  plain  of  Barbizon,  and  elsewhere, 
and  treated  it  with  a  poetic  and  emotional  feeling  for  light, 
shadow,  atmosphere,  color,  that  resulted  in  the  best  landscape 
painting  of  the  century. 

Corot  (1 796-1875)  was  classically  trained  under  Bertin, 
and  originally  inherited  the  Claude  Lorrain  tradition.  He 
was  somewhat  apart  from  the  other  men  in  his  life  and  was 
not  a  member  of  the  Fontainebleau-Barbizon  group,  yet  in  his 
sympathy  and  in  his  art  he  is  correctly  classed  with  them. 
He  was  a  man  whose  artistic  life  was  filled  with  the  beauty 
of  light  and  air.  These  he  painted  with  great  singleness  of 
aim  and  great  charm.  Most  of  his  work  is  in  a  light  silvery 
key  of  color,  usually  simple  but  significant  in  composition, 
large  in  masses  of  light  and  dark,  and  very  broadly  but  cleverly 
handled  with  the  brush.  He  began  painting  by  using  the 
minute  brush,  but  changed  it  later  on  for  a  freer  style  which 
recorded  only  the  great  omnipresent  truths  and  suppressed 
the  small  ones.  He  has  never  had  a  superior  in  producing  the 
permeating  light  of  morning  and  evening.  For  this  alone, 
if  for  no  other  excellence,  he  deservedly  holds  high  rank.     That 


FRENCH   PAINTING 


185 


to  this  beauty  of  light  he  brought  a  fine  poetic  feeling,  express- 
ing an  emotional  sensitiveness  in  a  lyric  way,  is  an  added 
charm.     He  was  the  painter-poet  of  light  first  in  his  class. 

Rousseau  (1S1 2-1867)  was  one  of  the  foremost  of  the  rec- 
ognized leaders,  and  one  of  the  most  learned  landscapists  of 
the  school.  A  man  of  many  moods  and  methods  he  produced 
in  variety  with  rare  versatility.  Much  of  his  work  was  ex- 
perimental, but  at  his  best  he  had  a  majestic  conception  of 
nature,  a  sense  of  its  power  and  permanence,  its  volume  and 


H 

1 

^   >ac 

^1 

2£f-- 

riHfl 

ifo 

S  ^ 

tfer-*- 

£*~  i.  ■■-> 

. 

--Sit, 

-  ■  .-j»    y,,:..    ;    >a 

FIG.    86  —  ROUSSEAU.      LANDSCAPE.     METROPOLITAN   MUSEUM,     NEW   YORK. 

mass,  that  often  resulted  in  the  highest  quality  of  pictorial 
poetry.  In  color  he  was  rich  and  usually  warm,  in  technique 
firm  and  individual,  in  sentiment  at  times  quite  lofty. 
At  first  he  painted  broadly  and  won  friends  among  the  artists 
and  sneers  from  the  public;  then  in  his  middle  style  he  painted 
in  detail,  and  had  a  period  of  popular  success;  in  his  late  style 
he  went  back  to  the  broad  manner,  and  died  amid  quarrels 
and  vexations  of  spirits.  His  long-time  friend  and  companion, 
Jules  Dupre  (181 2-1889),  hardly  reached  up  to  him,  though 
a  strong  painter  in  landscape  and  marine.     He  was  a  good 


1 86  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

but  not  great  colorist,  and,  technically,  his  brush  was  broad 
enough  but  sometimes  heavy.  His  late  work  is  inferior  in 
sentiment  and  labored  in  handling.  Diaz  (180S-1876)  was 
allied  to  Rousseau  in  aim  and  method,  though  not  so  sure  nor 
so  powerful  a  painter.  He  had  fancy  and  variety  in  creation 
that  sometimes  ran  to  license,  and  in  color  he  was  clear  and 
brilliant.  Never  very  well  trained,  his  drawing  is  often  in- 
different and  his  light  distorted,  but  these  are  more  than 
atoned  for  by  delicacy  and  poetic  charm.  At  times  he  painted 
with  much  power. 

These  were  the  chief  members  of  the  Fontainebleau- 
Barbizon  landscape  group.  It  is  claimed  that  the  influence  of 
the  English  painter,  Constable,  formed  their  style,  but  when 
Constable  exhibited  in  the  Salon  in  1824  Corot  was  a  young 
man  in  Rome.  Rousseau  and  Dupre  were  twelve  years  old, 
Diaz  was  fifteen  and  working  at  Sevres.  The  influence  of 
Constable  upon  youths  of  that  age  must  have  been  slight. 
Later  on  he  and  Bonington  may  have  been  studied  by  the 
group  but  there  is  no  evidence  of  it  in  their  work.  The 
painters  they  followed  at  first  were  Ruisdael  and  Hobbema, 
but  their  chief  model  was  nature. 

Daubigny  (1S17-1878)  was  sympathetic  with  the  Rous- 
seau-Diaz group  but  not  actually  a  participant  in  its 
life.  In  his  art  he  seemed  more  like  Corot  having  a  similar 
charm  of  style  and  love  of  atmosphere  and  light.  He  was 
fond  of  the  banks  of  the  Seine  and  the  Marne  at  twilight, 
with  evening  atmospheres  and  dark  trees  standing  in  silent 
ranks  against  the  warm  sky.  He  was  also  fond  of  the  gray  day 
along  the  coast,  and  even  the  sea  attracted  him  not  a  little. 
He  was  a  painter  of  fine  abilities,  and  in  treatment  strongly 
individual,  even  distinguished,  by  his  simplicity  and  direct- 
ness. Unity  of  the  whole,  grasp  of  the  mass  entire,  was  his 
technical  aim,  and  this  he  sought  to  get  not  so  much  by  line 
as  by  color-tones  of  varying  value.     In  this  respect  he  seemed 


FRENCH  PAINTING 


187 


a  connecting  link  between  Corot  and  the  present-day  impres- 
sionists. Chintreuil  (1814-1873)  and  Francais  (1814-1897) 
were  somewhat  allied  in  point  of  view  with  this  group  of  land- 
scape painters,  and  among  the  later  men  who  have  carried  out 
their  beliefs  are  Cazin  (i84i-iooi),Damoye  (1847-),  andPoint- 
elin  (1839-).  Harpignies  (1819-)  and  Pelouse  (?-i8oo)  seem 
a  little  more  inclined  to  the  decorative  than  the  poetic  view, 
though  producing   work   of   much   virility   and   intelligence. 


FIG.   87.  —  TROYON.      CATTLE.      LOUVRE. 


Claude  Monet  with  Pissaro,  Sisley,  and  many  of  the  impres- 
sionist landscape  painters  are  the  descendants  of  this  Fon- 
tainebleau  group  and  might  find  mention  here  in  historical 
sequence  were  it  not  for  taking  them  out  of  their  time  and 
movement.     They  will  be  mentioned  in  the  next  chapter. 

Contemporary  and  associated  with  the  Fontainebleau- 
Barbizon  painters  were  a  number  of  men  who  won  high 
distinction   as 


l88  HISTORY   OF   PAINTING 

PAINTERS  OF  ANIMALS:  Troyon  (1810-1865)  was  the 
most  prominent  among  them.  His  work  shows  a  similar  senti- 
ment for  light  and  color  to  that  of  the  Fontainebleau  land- 
scapists,  and  with  it  there  is  much  keen  insight  into  animal 
life.  As  a  technician  he  was  rather  hard  at  first,  and  he  never 
was  a  correct  draftsman,  but  he  had  a  way  of  giving  the 
character  of  the  objects  he  portrayed  which  was  essentially 
truthful.     He  did  many  landscapes  with  and  without  cattle. 


FIG.   88.  —  JACQUE.     SHEEP   IN   LANDSCAPE.      LUXEMBOURG,    PARIS. 

I'sually  they  are  somewhat  formal  in  composition  and  lack 
in  invention;  but  have  good  sentiment  and  color.  His  best 
pupil  was  Van  Marcke  (1827-1S90),  who  followed  his  methods 
but  never  possessed  the  feeling  of  his  master.  Jacque  (1S13- 
1901)  is  also  of  the  Fontainebleau-Barbizon  group,  and  is 
justly  celebrated  for  his  paintings  and  etchings  of  sheep. 
The  poetry  of  the  school  is  his,  and  technically  he  is  fine  in 
color  at  times,  if  often  rather  dark  in  illumination.  Like 
Troyon  he  knows  his  subject  well,  and  can  give  the  nature  of 
the  animal  with  true  feeling.     Rosa  Bonheur  (182 2-1 899)  and 


FRENCH  PAINTING  189 

her  brother,  Auguste  Bonheur  (1824-1884),  have  both  dealt 
with  animal  life,  but  never  with  that  fine  artistic  feeling  which 
would  warrant  their  popularity.  Their  work  is  correct  enough, 
but  prosaic  and  commonplace  in  spirit.  They  do  not  belong 
in  the  same  class  with  Troyon  and  Jacque. 

THE  PEASANT  PAINTERS:  Allied  again  in  feeling  and 
sentiment  with  the  Fontainebleau  landscapists  were  some 
celebrated  painters  of  peasant  life,  chief  among  whom  stood 
Millet  (1814-1875)  of  Barbizon.  The  pictorial  inclination 
of  Millet  was  early  grounded  by  a  study  of  Delacroix,  the 
master  romanticist,  and  his  work  is  an  expression  of  roman- 
ticism modified  by  an  individual  study  of  nature  and  applied 
to  peasant  life.  He  was  peasant  born,  living  and  dying  at 
Barbizon,  sympathizing  with  his  class,  and  painting  them 
with  great  poetic  force  and  simplicity.  His  sentiment  some- 
times has  a  literary  bias,  as  in  his  far-famed  but  indifferent 
Angelus,  but  usually  it  is  strictly  pictorial  and  has  to  do  with 
the  beauty  of  light,  air,  color,  motion,  life,  as  shown  in  his 
Sower  and  his  Gleaners.  Technically  he  was  a  coarse  but  very 
strong  draftsman.  He  had  a  large  feeling  for  form,  that  some- 
times reminds  one  of  Michelangelo,  great  simplicity  in  line, 
in  which  one  is  occasionally  reminded  of  the  Dutch  painters, 
keen  perception  of  the  relations  of  light  and  dark,  and  at  times 
an  excellent  color-sense.  He  was  virtually  the  discoverer  of 
the  peasant  as  an  art  subject,  and  for  this,  as  for  his  original 
point  of  view  and  artistic  feeling,  he  is  ranked  as  one  of  the 
foremost  artists  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

Jules  Breton  (1827-1906),  though  painting  little  besides 
the  peasantry,  was  no  Millet  follower,  for  he  started  painting 
peasant  scenes  at  about  the  same  time  as  Millet.  His  affin- 
ities were  with  the  New-Greeks  early  in  life,  and  after  that 
he  inclined  toward  the  academic  in  style,  though  handling 
the  rustic  subject.  He  was  a  good  technician,  except  in  his 
late  work;   but  as  an  original  thinker,  as  a  pictorial  poet,  he 


igo 


HISTORY  OF   PAIXTING 


did  not  show  the  intensity  or  profundity  of  Millet.  The 
followers  of  the  Millet-Breton  tradition  were  many.  The  blue- 
frocked  and  sabot-shod  peasantry  appeared  in  salon  and 
gallery  for  many  years  after  Millet  died  but  with  not  very 
good  results.     The  imitators,  as  usual,  caught  at  the  subject 


FIG.   89.  —  MILLET.      THE   GLEANERS.      LOUVRE. 

and  missed  the  spirit.  Lerolle,  a  man  of  present-day  note, 
is  perhaps  the  most  considerable  of  the  painters  of  rural 
subjects  after  Millet  and  Breton.  Other  painters  who  have 
descended  artistically  from  Millet — Bastien-Lepage,  Dagnan- 
Bouveret,  and  Lhermitte — might  be  mentioned  here  were  it 
not  that  they  belong  more  properly  with  their  contemporaries 
later  on  in  this  history. 

EXTANT  WORKS :  There  are  many  examples  of  the  Fontainc- 
bleau-Barbizon  painters  in  the  Louvre,  the  Luxembourg,  and  the 
municipal  galleries  of  France.  The  American  Museums  and  the 
private  collections  in  America  arc  also  well  supplied  with  their  works. 


CHAPTER   XV 
FRENCH  PAINTING 

THE   NINETEENTH   AND   TWENTIETH   CENTURIES  — 

CONTINUED 

Books  Recommended:  The  books  before  mentioned,  Hour- 
ticq,  Stranahan,  et  al.;  also  Balliere,  Henri  Regnault;  Dew- 
hurst,  Impressionistic  Painting;  Duret,  Le  Peintre  Claude 
Monet;  Les  Peintres  Impressionistes;  Monet  et  son  (Euvre; 
Ephrussi,  Paul  Baudry,  sa  vie  et  son  ceuvre;  Geffroy,  La  Vie 
Artistique;  Greard,  Meissonier;  Lecomte,  Albert  Besnard; 
Camille  Pissaro;  Mauclair,  French  Impressionists;  Moore, 
Modern  Art;  Riat,  Courbet;  Seailles,  Eugene  Carrier e;  Theu- 
riet,  Jules  Bastien-Lepage;    Vachon,  Puvis  de  Chavannes. 

THE  SEMI-CLASSICISTS:  It  must  not  be  inferred 
that  the  classic  influence  of  David  and  Ingres  disappeared 
from  view  with  the  coming  of  the  romanticists,  the  Fontaine- 
bleau  landscapists,  and  the  Barbizon  painters.  On  the  con- 
trary side  by  side  with  these  men,  and  opposed  to  them,  were 
the  believers  in  line  and  academic  formulas  of  the  beautiful. 
The  whole  tendency  of  academic  art  in  France  was  against 
Delacroix,  Rousseau,  and  Millet.  During  their  lives  they 
were  regarded  as  heretics  in  art  and  without  the  pale  of  the 
Academy.  Their  art,  however,  combined  with  nature  study 
and  the  realism  of  Courbet,  succeeded  in  modifying  the  classi- 
cism of  Ingres  into  what  has  been  called  semi-classicism.  It 
consisted  in  the  elevated,  heroic,  or  historical  theme,  academic 
form  carefully  and  precisely  drawn,  some  show  of  bright  colors, 
smoothness  of  brush-work,  and  precision  and  nicety  of  detail. 
In  treatment  it  attempted  the  realistic,  but  in  spirit  it  has  been 
usually  stilted,  cold,  unsympathetic. 


i92  HISTORY   OF   PAINTING 

Cabanel  (1S23-1889)  and  Bouguereau  (1825-1905)  have 
both  represented  semi-classic  art  fairly  well.  They  have  been 
justly  ranked  as  correct  draftsmen  and  good  portrait-painters, 
but  their  work  always  has  about  it  the  stamp  of  the  academy 
machine,  a  something  done  to  order,  learned  and  exact,  but 
lacking  in  the  personal  element.  It  is  a  weakness  of  the  aca- 
demic method  that  it  virtually  banishes  the  individuality  of 
mind,  eye,  and  hand  in  favor  of  school  formulas.  Cabanel 
and  Bouguereau  have  painted  many  incidents  of  classic  and 
historic  story,  but  with  never  a  dash  of  enthusiasm  or  a  sug- 
gestion of  the  great  qualities  of  painting.  Their  drawing  has 
been  as  thorough  as  could  be  asked  for  in  academic  circles, 
but  their  color  has  been  harsh  and  their  brushes  cold  and  thin. 

Gerome  (1824-1004)  was  a  man  of  classic  training  and 
inclination,  but  his  versatility  hardly  allowed  him  to  be  clas- 
sified anywhere.  He  was  first  a  leader  of  the  New-Greeks, 
painting  delicate  mythological  subjects;  then  an  historical 
painter,  showing  deaths  of  Caesar  and  the  like;  then  an  Orien- 
talist, giving  scenes  from  Cairo  and  Constantinople;  then  a 
genre  painter,  depicting  contemporary  subjects  in  the  many 
lands  through  which  he  had  travelled.  Whatever  he  painted 
showed  semi-classic  drawing,  ethnological  and  archaeological 
knowledge,  Parisian  technique,  and  exact  detail.  His  travels 
never  changed  his  precise  scientific  point  of  view.  He  was 
a  true  academician  at  bottom,  but  a  more  versatile  and  cul- 
tured painter  than  either  Cabanel  or  Bouguereau.  He  drew 
well,  sometimes  used  color  well,  and  was  an  excellent  painter 
of  textures.  A  man  of  learning  in  many  departments  he  was 
no  painter  to  be  sneered  at,  and  yet  was  never  a  painter  to 
make  the  pulse  beat  faster  or  to  arouse  the  aesthetic  emotions. 
His  work  is  impersonal,  objective  fact,  showing  a  brilliant 
exterior  but  inwardly  devoid  of  feeling. 

Paul  Baudry  (1828-1886),  though  a  disciple  of  line,  was 
not  precisely  a  semi-classicist,  and  perhaps  for  that  reason 


FRENCH   PAINTING 


193 


was  superior  to  many  of  the  academic  painters  of  his  time. 
He  was  a  follower  of  the  old  masters  in  Rome  more  than  the 
Ecole  des  Beaux  Arts.  His  subjects,  aside  from  many  fine 
portraits,  were  almost  all  classical,  allegorical,  or  mytholog- 
ical.    He  was   an  excellent  draftsman,   and,   what  is  more 


FIG.   go.  — BOUGUEREAU.      MADONNA   OF   CONSOLATION. 
LUXEMBOURG,   PARIS. 


remarkable  in  conjunction  therewith,  a  rare  colorist.  He  was 
hardly  a  great  originator,  and  had  not  passion,  dramatic  force, 
or  much  sentiment,  except  such  as  may  be  found  in  his  deli- 
cate coloring  and  rhythm  of  line.  Nevertheless  he  was  an 
artist  to  be  admired  for  his  purity  of  purpose  and  breadth  of 
accomplishment.     His  chief  work  is  to  be  seen  in  the  Opera 


194  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

at  Paris.  Puvis  de  Chavannes  (1824-1898)  was  quite  a 
different  style  of  painter,  and  was  remarkable  for  fine  delicate 
tones  of  color  which  hold  their  place  well  on  wall  or  ceiling, 
and  for  a  certain  simple  grandeur  of  composition.  In  his 
desire  to  revive  the  monumental  painting  of  the  Renaissance 
he  met  with  much  praise;  and  also  some  criticism  for  his 
archaistic  tendencies.  He  was  an  artist  of  sincerity  and 
learning,  and  in  mural  decoration  had  no  superior  in  the 
France  of  his  day. 

Hebert  (181 7-1908),  an  early  painter  of  academic  leanings, 
and  Henner  (1829-1905),  fond  of  form  and  yet  a  brushman 
with  an  idyllic  feeling  for  light  and  color  in  dark,  Prudhon- 
esque  surroundings,  were  painters  who  may  come  under  the 
semi-classic  grouping.  Lefebvre  (1834-1912)  was  probably 
the  most  pronounced  in  academic  methods  among  the  later 
men  and  was  a  draftsman  of  ability. 

PORTRAIT  AND  FIGURE  PAINTERS:  Under  this  head- 
ing may  be  included  some  painters  who  stand  by  themselves, 
showing  no  positive  preference  for  either  the  classic  or  romantic 
followings  and  yet  were  trained  in  one  group  or  the  other. 
Of  recent  years  the  sharp  distinction  of  schools  has  rather 
given  way  to  eclectic  acceptance  of  different  successes,  so 
that  often  several  tendencies  are  to  be  observed  in  one  man's 
work.  More  often,  however,  an  individual  point  of  view 
dominates  and  the  influence  of  others  is  not  apparent.  Bonnat 
(1833-)  has  painted  all  kinds  of  subjects  —  genre,  figure,  and 
historical  pieces  —  but  is  perhaps  best  known  as  a  portrait- 
painter.  He  has  done  forceful  work  that  suggests  a  liking  for 
Ribera.  Some  of  it  indeed  is  astonishing  in  its  realistic  model- 
ling —  the  accentuation  of  light  and  shadow  often  causing  the 
figures  to  advance  unnaturally.  From  this  feature  and  from 
his  detail  he  has  been  known  for  years  as  a  "realist."  His 
anatomical  Christ  on  the  Cross  and  his  mural  paintings  in  the 
Pantheon  are  examples.     As  a  portrait-painter  he  is  accept- 


FRENCH  PAINTING  195 

able,  if  at  times  a  little  raw  in  color.  Another  portrait-painter 
of  celebrity  is  Carolus-Duran  (183  7-).  He  is  rather  startling 
at  times  in  his  portrayal  of  robes  and  draperies,  has  a  facility 
of  the  brush  that  is  frequently  deceptive,  and  in  color  is  some- 
times vivid.  He  has  had  great  success  as  a  teacher,  with 
Velasquez  as  his  text-book,  and  is,  all  told,  a  painter  of  high 
rank.  Delaunay  (1 828-1892)  was  a  mural  painter  almost  in  the 
same  class  with  Baudry  but  in  his  late  years  painted  little  be- 
sides portraits.  Laurens 
(1838-)  has  been  more  of 
a  historical  painter  than 
the  others,  and  has  dealt 
largely  with  death  scenes. 
He  is  often  spoken  of  as 
"  the  painter  of  the  dead," 
—  a  man  of  sound  train- 
ing and  excellent  technical 
power.  Regnault  (1843- 
1871)  was  a  figure  and 
genre  painter  with  much 
feeling  for  oriental  light 
and  color,  who  unfortu- 
nately was  killed  in  battle 
at  twenty-seven  years  of 
age.     He  was  an  artist  of 

.  .  .      ,     -,  FIG.   QI.  —  HENNER.      FABIOLA. 

much    promise,   and  lelt 

a  number  of  notable  canvases.  Among  the  later  men  (some 
living  and  some  dead)  who  portray  the  historical  subject  in 
an  elevated  style  mention  should  be  made  of  Cormon, 
Moreau,  Benjamin-Constant,  and  Rochegrosse.  As  painters 
of  portraits  Aman-Jean,  Blanche,  and  Carriere  have  long 
held  rank,  —  the  last-named  (died  in  1906)  being  marked 
by  his  vapory  light  and  air,  his  sombre  coloring,  and  his 
delicately  veiled  modelling. 


196  HISTORY   OF   PAINTING 

THE  REALISTS:  About  the  time  of  the  appearance  of 
Millet,  say  1848,  there  also  came  to  the  front  a  man  who 
scorned  both  classicism  and  romanticism,  and  maintained 
that  the  only  model  and  subject  of  art  should  be  nature.  This 
man,  Courbet  (1S19-1878),  really  gave  a  third  tendency  to  the 
art  of  this  century  in  France,  and  his  influence  undoubtedly 
had  much  to  do  with  modifying  both  the  classic  and  romantic 
movements.  Courbet  was  a  man  of  arrogant,  dogmatic 
disposition,  and  was  quite  heartily  detested  during  his  life, 
but  that  he  was  a  painter  of  great  ability  few  will  deny.  His 
theory  was  the  abolition  of  both  sentiment  and  academic  law, 
and  the  taking  of  nature  just  as  it  was,  with  all  its  beauties 
and  all  its  deformities.  This,  too,  was  his  practice  to  a  certain 
extent.  His  art  is  material,  and  yet  at  times  very  lofty  in 
conception.  And  while  he  believed  in  realism  he  did  not  be- 
lieve in  petty  detail,  but  rather  in  the  great  truths  of  nature. 
These  he  saw  with  a  discerning  eye  and  portrayed  with  a 
masterful  brush.  He  believed  in  what  he  saw  only,  and  had 
more  the  observing  than  the  reflective  or  emotional  disposition. 
As  a  technician  he  was  coarse  but  superbly  strong,  handling 
figures,  sky,  earth,  air,  with  the  ease  and  power  of  one  well 
trained  in  his  craft.  His  subjects  were  many  —  the  peasantry 
of  France,  landscape,  and  the  sea  holding  prominent  places  — 
and  his  influence,  though  not  direct  because  he  had  no  pupils 
of  importance,  was  nevertheless  most  potent  with  the  late  men. 

After  Courbet  the  painters  who  do  things  in  a  " realistic" 
way  are  frequently  met  with  in  French  art.  Lhermitte 
(1844-),  Julien  Dupre  (1851-),  and  others  have  handled  the 
peasant  subject  with  skill,  after  the  Millet-Courbet  initiative; 
and  Bastien-Lepage  (1 848-1884)  excited  a  good  deal  of  admi- 
ration in  his  lifetime  for  the  truth  and  evident  sincerity  of  his 
art.  Bastien's  point  of  view  was  realistic  enough,  but  some- 
what material.  He  never  handled  the  large  composition  with 
success,  but  in  small  pieces  and  in  portraits  he  was  quite  above 


FRENCH  PAINTING 


197 


criticism.  He  could  realize  the  model  with  exactness  and  that 
was  at  once  his  success  and  his  limitation.  His  following 
among  the  young  men  was  considerable,  and  some  of  the 
impressionists  have  ranked  him  among  their  disciples  or 
leaders. 

PAINTERS  OF  MILITARY  SCENES,  GENRE,  ETC.:  The 
art  of  Meissonier  (1815-1891),  while  extremely  realistic  in 
modern  "o!etail,  probably  originated  from  a  study  of  the  Lit- 
tle Dutchmen  of  the  seventeenth  century.  It  does  not  por- 
tray low  life,  but  rather  the  half-aristocratic  life  —  the  scholar, 
the  cavalier,  the  gentleman  of  leisure.     This  is  given  on  a  small 


FIG.  92.  —  PUVIS  DE  CHAVANNES.   CARTOON  FOR 
THE  SORBONNE  DECORATION.   PARIS. 

scale  with  microscopic  nicety,  and  really  more  in  the  historical 
than  the  genre  spirit.  Single  figures  and  interiors  were  his 
preference,  but  he  also  painted  a  cycle  of  Napoleonic  battle- 
pictures.  There  is  little  or  no  sentiment  about  his  work  — 
little  more  than  in  that  of  Gerome.  His  success  lay  in  exact 
technical  accomplishment.  He  drew  well,  handled  textures 
well,  painted  well.  His  art  is  more  admired  by  the  public 
than  by  the  painters;  but  even  the  latter  do  not  fail  to  praise 
his  skill  of  hand. 

The  genre  painting  of  fashionable  life  has  been  carried  out 
by  many  followers  of  Meissonier,  whose  names  need  not  be 


igS 


HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 


mentioned  since  they  have  not  improved  upon  their  fore- 
runner. Toulmouche  (1829-1890),  Leloir  (1843-1884),  Vibert 
(1840-1902),  Bargue  (?-i883),  and  others,  though  somewhat 
different  from  Meissonier,  belong  among  those  painters  of 
genre  who  love  detail,  costumes,  stories,  and  pretty  faces. 
Among  the  painters  of  military  genre  besides  Meissonier  one 


FIG.  93.  —  COURBET.   DEER  RETREAT.   LOUVRE,  PARIS. 

thinks  of  De  Neuville  (1836-1885),  Berne-Bellecour  (1S38- 
1910),  Detaille  (1848-1912),  and  Aime-Morot  (1S50-),  all  of 
them  painters  of  merit. 

Quite  a  different  style  of  genre  is  to  be  found  in  the  work  of 
Ribot  (1823-1891),  a  strong  painter,  remarkable  for  his  apposi- 
tion of  high  flesh  notes  with  deep  shadows,  after  the  manner  of 
Ribera,  the  Spanish  painter.  Roybet  (1840-),  fond  of  rich 
stuffs  and  tapestries  with  velvet-clad  characters  in  interiors, 
derived  somewhat  from  the  seventeenth-century  Dutch,  has 
shown   good  color  and   free   painting.     Bonvin    (1817-1887) 


FRENCH  PAINTING  199 

painted  interiors  with  small  figures,  copper-kettles,  and 
other  still-life  that  have  given  brilliancy  to  his  pictures.  As 
a  still-life  painter  Vollon  (1 833-1 900)  has  never  had  a  superior. 
His  fruits,  flowers,  armors,  even  his  small  marines  and  harbor 
pieces,  are  painted  with  one  of  the  surest  brushes  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.  He  was  called  the  "painter's  painter,"  and 
was  a  man  of  force  in  handling  color,  and  in  giving  large 
realistic  effects.  Dantan  and  Friant  have  both  produced 
canvases  showing  figures  in  interiors  with  good  results. 

A  number  of  excellent  genre  painters  have  been  claimed  by 
the  impressionists  as  belonging  to  their  brotherhood.  There 
is  little  to  warrant  the  claim,  except  their  adoption  to  some 
extent  of  modern  ideas  of  illumination  and  flat  painting. 
Dagnan-Bouveret  (1852-)  is  one  of  these  men,  a  good  drafts- 
man, and  a  finished  clean  painter  who  by  his  use  of  high  color 
finds  himself  occasionally  looked  upon  as  an  impressionist. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  he  is  one  of  the  most  conservative  of 
the  moderns  —  a  man  of  imagination,  and  a  fine  technician. 
Fantin-Latour  (1836-1904)  was  half  romantic,  half  allegorical 
in  subject,  and  in  treatment  oftentimes  designedly  vague 
and  shadowy,  more  suggestive  than  realistic.  His  portraits 
are  excellent  and  his  flowers  superb.  Duez,  Gervex,  Maignan, 
Roll,  are  perhaps  nearer  to  impressionism  in  their  works  than 
the  others,  but  they  are  not  at  all  advanced  advocates  of  this 
late  phase  of  French  art.  Nor  are  Cottet  and  Henri  Martin 
exactly  of  the  impressionist  brotherhood,  though  Cottet  sug- 
gests Millet,  and  Martin  has  borrowed  some  illumination  from 
Monet. 

THE  IMPRESSIONISTS :  The  name  is  a  misnomer.  Every 
painter  is  an  impressionist  in  so  far  as  he  records  his  impres- 
sions, and  all  art  is  impressionistic.  What  Manet  (1S33- 
1883),  the  leader  of  the  original  movement,  meant  to  say  was 
that  nature  should  not  be  painted  as  it  actually  is,  but  as  it 
"impresses"  the  painter.     He  and  his  few  followers  tried  to 


200 


HISTORY   OF   PAINTING 


change  the  name  to  Independents,  but  the  original  name  has 
clung  to  them  and  has  been  mistakenly  fastened  to  a  band  of 
landscape  painters  led  by  Monet  who  have  been  seeking  effects 
of  light  and  air  and  should  have  been  called  luminarists. 
Manet  was  like  Goya  in  method  and  disposed  toward  low  life 


FIG.   94.  —  DAGNAN-BOUVERET.      MADONNA. 
METROPOLITAN    MUSEUM,    NEW    YORK. 


for  a  subject  (like  Goya  again),  which  has  always  militated 
against  his  popularity;  but  he  was  a  very  important  man  for 
his  technical  discoveries  regarding  the  relations  of  light  and 
shadow,  the  flat  appearance  of  nature,  the  exact  value  of  color 
tones.  Some  of  his  works,  like  The  Boy  with  a  Sword  and 
The  Toreador  Dead,  are  excellent  pieces  of  painting.     The 


FRENCH   PAINTING 


20I 


higher  imaginative  qualities  of  art  Manet  made  no  great 
effort  at  attaining,  but  he  was  almost  a  perfect  painter  in  the 
Velasquez  sense. 

Degas  stands  quite  by  himself  though  often  included  in  the 
impressionist  group.  He  is  a  wonderful  draftsman,  delights  in 
line  effects,  is  fond  of  movement  as  with  figures  or  race-horses, 
has  a  fine  color  sense,  and 
is  facile  with  his  brush 
in  such  subjects  as  ballet- 
girls  and  scenes  from  the 
theatre.  Besnard  is  one 
of  the  best  of  the  modern 
men.  He  deals  with  the 
figure,  and  is  usually  con- 
cerned with  the  problem 
of  harmonizing  color 
under  conflicting  lights, 
such  as  twilight  and 
lamplight.  In  mural  dec- 
oration both  he  and  La- 
touche  have  done  some 
startling  work.  Beraud 
and  Raffaelli  are  exceed- 
ingly clever  in  street 
scenes  and  character 
pieces;  Pissaro  handles 
the    peasantry    in    high 

color;  and  Renoir,  the  middle  class  of  social  life.  Renoir, 
with  an  art  founded  on  Delacroix,  is  one  of  the  most  bril- 
liant colorists  of  the  modern  school.  Cezanne,  Gauguin, 
and  Mary  Cassatt,  an  American,  are  also  classed  with  the 
impressionists.  The  name  has  recently  become  very  inclusive 
and  anything  in  painting  that  is  light  in  key  or  unusual  in 
method  is  said  to  be  impressionistic.     An  advance  even  has 


FIG.   Q5.  —  MANET.      BOY   WITH   SWORD. 
METROPOLITAN    MUSEUM,    NEW    YORK. 


202 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 


been  made  upon  this  movement  by  different  groups  of  painters 
who  have  been  called  post-impressionists,  cubists,  and  futur- 
ists. The  efforts  of  these  groups  have  not  as  yet  passed 
out  of  the  experimental  stage  and  need  not  be  dealt  with 
here. 

IMPRESSIONIST  LANDSCAPE  PAINTERS:  With  Claude 
Monet  (1S40-),  at  the  very  beginning  of  impressionism,  there 
was  a  disposition  to  change  the  key  of  light  in  landscape  paint- 
ing, to  get  nearer  the 
truth  of  nature  in  the 
height  of  light  and  in 
the  height  of  shadows. 
Monet  began  by  doing 
away  with  the  dark 
brown  or  black  shadow 
and  substituted  the 
light  colored  shadow, 
which  is  nearer  the  ac- 
tual truth  of  nature.  In 
trying  to  raise  the  pitch 
of  li<j;ht  he  has  not  been 
quite  so  successful, 
though  accomplishing 
considerable.  His 
method  has  been  to  use 
pure  prismatic  colors,  on 
the  principle  that  color  is  light  in  a  decomposed  form,  and 
that  its  proper  juxtaposition  on  canvas  will  recompose  into 
pure  light  again.  In  this  he  and  his  followers  have  been 
fairly  successful.  The  light  shadows  and  bright  colors  cer- 
tainly give  luminosity  and  sparkle,  and  to  this  is  added,  by 
broken  tones  of  color,  much  fine  atmospheric  effect.  That 
the  pictures  have  not  subject,  formal  composition,  and  detail 
is  to  their  advantage.   Impressionism  is  not  only  a  new  method 


FIG.   96.  —  RENOIR.      GIRLS   AT   PIANO. 
LUXEMBOURG,    PARIS. 


FRENCH  PAINTING  203 

but  a  new  view  in  which  landscape  is  a  broader,  larger,  more 
spacious  affair  than  ever  before. 

The  following  of  Monet  in  the  impressionistic  landscape  has 
been  very  large  not  only  in  France  but  in  Germany,  Italy, 
England,  Scandinavia,  and  America.  For  years  the  exhibi- 
tions have  been  colored  by  the  palette  of  impressionism. 
Just  at  this  time  (1914)  there  is  a  drift  in  another  direction, 
following  the  sombre  coloring  of  Whistler,  but  the  results 
of  Monet's  initiative  will  not  be  wholly  dissipated.  So  many 
painters  in  France  have  followed  his  methods  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  name  them  all.  Monet  was  influenced  by  Boudin  the 
marine  painter  and  he  had  as  contemporaries  working  with 
him  Sisley,  Pissaro,  Renoir,  —  to  mention  only  the  earlier 
men.  Maufra  and  the  later  generation  of  impressionistic 
landscapists  have  not  yet  become  historic. 

EXTANT  WORKS :  The  modern  French  painters  are  seen  to  ad- 
vantage in  the  Louvre,  Luxembourg,  Pantheon,  Sorbonne,  and  the 
municipal  galleries  of  France.  Also  Metropolitan  Museum,  New  York, 
Chicago  Art  Institute,  Boston  Museum,  and  many  private  collections 
in  France  and  America.  Some  of  the  German  galleries,  notably  the 
National  Gallery  at  Berlin,  have  works  of  the  impressionists. 


CHAPTER   XVI 

SPANISH  PAINTING 

Books  Recommended:  Consult  the  General  Bibliography 
and  also:  Armstrong,  Velasquez;  Beruete,  Velasquez;  Beruete 
y  Moret,  School  of  Madrid;  Breal,  Velasquez;  Caffin,  Old 
Spanish  Masters;  Cean-Bermudez,  Diccionario  Historic  o  de  los 
mas  Illustres  Profesores  de  las  Bellas  Artes  en  Espana;  Cossio, 
El  Greco;  Historia  de  la  Pintura  Espafwla;  Davillier,  Fortuny; 
Dieulafoy,  Art  in  Spain  a>ul  Portugal;  Faure,  Velasquez; 
Ford,  Handbook  of  Spain;  Hartley,  Record  of  Spanish  Painting; 
Head,  History  of  Spanish  and  French  Schools  of  Painting; 
Justi,  Velasquez  and  his  Times;  Lafond,  Goya;  Murillo; 
Ribera  et  Zurbaran;  Lefort,  ^Francisco  Goya;  La  Peinture 
Espagnole;  Murillo  et  son  Ecole;  Velasquez;  Palomino  de 
Castro  y  Velasco,  Vidas  de  los  Pintores  y  Estatuarios  Eminen- 
tes  Espaholes;  Passavant,  Die  Christliche  Kunst  in  Spanien; 
Plon,  Les  Maitres  It  aliens  au  Service  de  la  Maison  dWutriche; 
Ricketts,  The  Prado;  Sentenach,  Painters  of  the  School  of  Ma- 
drid; Stevenson,  Velasquez;  Stirling,  Annals  of  the  Artists  of 
Spain;  Velasquez  and  his  Works;  Temple,  Modern  Spanish 
Painting;  Tubino,  El  Arte  y  los  Artistas  contempordncos  en  la 
Peninsula;  Murillo;  Viardot,  Notices  sur  les  Principaux 
Peintres  de  VEspagne;  Williamson,  Velasquez;  Yriarte,  Goya, 
sa  Biographie,  etc. 

SPANISH  ART  MOTIVES:  What  may  have  been  the  very 
early  art  of  Spain  we  are  at  a  loss  to  conjecture.  The  deeds 
of  the  Moor,  the  iconoclast,  and  the  vandal  have  left  little 
that  dates  before  the  fourteenth  century.  The  miniatures  and 
sacred  relics  treasured  in  the  churches,  and  said  to  be  of  the 
apostolic  period,  show  the  traces  of  a  much  later  date.  Even 
when  we  come  down  to  the  fifteenth  century  and  meet  with 


SPANISH    PAINTING  205 

art  produced  in  Spain,  we  have  a  following  of  Italy,  Flanders, 
or  Burgundy.  But  in  methods  and  technique  it  was  at  first 
quite  original  and  almost  from  the  beginning  peculiarly 
Spanish  in  spirit.  That  spirit  was  a  dark  and  morose  one. 
It  cringed  under  the  lash  of  the  Church,  bowed  before  the 
Inquisition,  and  did  with  the  paint-brush  what  it  was  told 
to  do,  but  it  was  never  very  happy  over  it,  never  joyful, 
elated,  buoyant. 

The  bulk  of  Spanish  art  was  Church  art,  done  under  eccle- 
siastical domination,  and  done  in  form  without  question  or 
protest.  The  religious  subject  ruled.  True  enough,  there  was 
portraiture  of  nobility,  and  under  Philip  and  Velasquez  a  half- 
monarchical  art  of  military  scenes  and  genre;  but  this  was  not 
the  bent  of  Spanish  painting  as  a  whole.  Even  in  late  days, 
when  Velasquez  was  reflecting  the  haughty  court,  Murillo  was 
more  widely  and  nationally  reflecting  the  believing  provinces 
and  the  Church  faith  of  the  people. 

It  is  safe  to  say,  in  a  general  way,  that  the  Church  was 
responsible  for  Spanish  art,  and  that  religion  up  to  the  time  of 
Velasquez  was  its  chief  motive.  There  was  no  revived  antique, 
little  of  the  nude  or  the  pagan,  little  of  consequence  in  land- 
scape, little,  until  Velasquez's  time,  of  the  real  and  the  actual. 
An  ascetic  view  of  life,  faith,  and  the  hereafter  prevailed. 
The  pietistic,  the  fervent,  and  the  devout  were  not  more 
conspicuous  than  the  morose,  the  ghastly,  and  the  horrible. 
The  saints  and  martyrs,  the  crucifixions  and  violent  deaths, 
were  eloquent  of  the  torture-chamber.  It  was  more  ecclesiasti- 
cism  by  blood  and  violence  than  Christianity  by  peace  and 
love.  And  Spain  welcomed  this.  For  of  all  the  children  of 
the  Church  she  was  the  most  faithful  to  rule,  crushing  out 
heresy  with  an  iron  hand,  gaining  strength  from  the  Catholic 
reaction,  and  upholding  the  Inquisition. 

ROMANESQUE  PERIOD:  There  is  little  upon  which  to 
base  a  positive  statement  about  art  in  Spain  in  this  period. 


2o6 


HISTORY   OF   PAINTING 


There  are  some  panels  in  the  museums  of  Barcelona  and  Vich 
that  are  thought  to  date  back  to  the  eleventh  century.  They 
show,  in  the  types  and  workmanship,  the  influence  of  Byzan- 
tine art  and  were  possibly  inspired  by  the  pictures  in  Byzantine 


FIG.    97.  —  SANCHEZ-COELLO.      CLARA   EUGENIA,   DAUGHTER   OF 
PHILIP   n.        MADRID. 

manuscripts  of  the  time.  At  Sant  Climent,  Tahull,  there  are 
some  frescos  supposed  to  be  of  the  twelfth  century,  also  show- 
ing Byzantine  influence.  There  are  other  works  elsewhere, 
of  mixed  inspiration,  half-Persian,  half-Moslem;  but  there 
seems  little  continuity  about  them.  Apparently  they  lead 
nowhere. 


SPANISH  PAINTING  207 

GOTHIC  AND  RENAISSANCE  PERIOD:  From  the  four- 
teenth century  on  there  is  more  definite  form  to  Spanish 
art.  It  is  at  first  derivative  and  shows  the  influence  of 
either  Italy,  Flanders,  or  France.  The  figures  are  meagre,  the 
action  is  awkward,  there  is  some  dramatic  quality,  some  at- 
tempt at  realization  of  nature,  with  much  decorative  effect 
in  gold  grounds  and  gilded  stucco.  The  painters  were  scat- 
tered about  in  the  different  cities.  Their  styles  were  hardly 
so  very  different  at  the  start  that  they  can  be  divided  up  into 
schools.  It  is  true  they  have  been  classified  under  schools 
but  the  classifications  in  the  early  days  would  better  be  con- 
sidered as  more  geographical  than  artistic. 

CATALAN  SCHOOL:  In  Catalonia  the  influences  in  the 
early  fourteenth  century  were  Italian.  Luis  Borassa  (1366?- 
1424)  was  one  of  the  early  men  there  —  a  painter  of  rich 
decorative  altar-pieces.  Martorell,  who  probably  studied  in 
Florence,  and  Jaime  Huguet  were  the  successors  of  Borassa 
and  painters  of  more  skill.  They  were  all  using  gold  grounds 
with  much  ornament  in  their  work.  In  Luis  Dalman  (fl.  c. 
1445)  the  Flemish  influence  of  the  Van  Eycks  is  quite  apparent. 
In  the  last  half  of  the  fifteenth  century  came  the  members  of 
the  painter  family,  the  Vergos,  who  greatly  improved  the 
general  technique  of  art  though  still  retaining  the  use  of  gild- 
ing and  gold  grounds.  In  later  days  the  Catalan  painters 
seem  to  have  been  outranked  by  those  at  Madrid. 

CASTILIAN  SCHOOL:  Spanish  painting  took  a  more 
definite  and  determined  start  in  Castile  than  elsewhere. 
What,  if  any,  direct  effect  the  maritime  discoveries,  the 
foreign  conquests,  the  growth  of  literature,  and  the  decline 
of  Italy,  may  have  had  upon  it  can  only  be  conjectured; 
but  certainly  the  advance  of  the  nation  politically  and 
socially  was  paralleled  by  the  advance  of  its  art. 

There  was  probably  no  so-called  founder  of  this  Castilian 
school.     It  was  a  growth  from  early  art  traditions  at  Toledo, 


20S 


HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 


and  afterward  became  the  chief  school  of  the  kingdom  owing 
to  the  patronage  of  Philip  II  and  Philip  IV  at  Madrid.  In 
the  first  half  of  the  fifteenth  century  Stamina  and  others  came 
from  Italy  and  in  1428  Jan  Van  Eyck  arrived  from  Flanders. 

These  men  must  have 
had  an  influence  upon 
the  Spanish  masters  of 
the  time.  Juan  de  Bor- 
gona  worked  in  the 
Italian  style,  Fernando 
Gallegos  in  the  style  of 
Bouts,  and  Pedro  Berru- 
guete  helped  himself  to 
both  styles.  The  first 
painter  of  importance  in 
the  school  seems  to  have 
been  Antonio  Rincon 
(1446  ?-i  500?).  He  is 
sometimes  spoken  of  as 
the  father  of  Spanish 
painting,  and  as  having 
studied  in  Italy  with  Cas- 
tagno  and  Ghirlandajo, 
but  there  is  little  proof 
for  either  statement.  He 
painted  chieily  at  Toledo, 
painted  portraits  of  Fer- 
dinand and  Isabella,  and 

FIG.  98. -IL  GRECO.     CRUCIFIXION.      PRADO.  MADRID,     j^    ^^    ^      ^     ^^ 

drawing.  Alonzo  Berruguete  (1450-1561)  studied  with  Mi- 
chelangelo, and  is  supposed  to  have  helped  him  in  the  Vatican. 
He  afterward  (1520)  returned  to  Spain,  painted  many  altar- 
pieces,  and  was  patronized  as  painter,  sculptor,  and  architect 
by  Charles  V  and  Philip  II.     He  was  probably   the  first  to 


SPANISH  PAINTING  209 

introduce  pure  Italian  methods  into  Spain,  with  some  cold- 
ness and  dryness  of  coloring  and  handling,  some  over- 
modelling,  and  some  strength  of  line.  Becerra  (1520-1570) 
was  born  in  Andalusia,  but  worked  in  Castile,  and  was  a  man 
of  Italian  training  similar  to  Berruguete,  being  a  pupil  of 
Vasari.  He  was  painter  and  sculptor  to  Philip  II  and  is 
said  to  have  introduced  the  late  Italian  style  into  Spain. 
He  was  an  exceptional  man  in  his  use  of  mythological  themes 
and  nude  figures. 

There  is  not  a  great  deal  known  about  Morales  (1509?- 
1586),  called  "the  Divine,"  except  that  he  appears  allied  to 
the  Castilian  school,  and  painted  devotional  heads  of  Christ 
with  the  crown  of  thorns,  and  many  afflicted  and  weeping 
madonnas.  There  was  indifferent  drawing  in  his  work,  some 
awkwardness  in  the  figures  showing  Flemish  influence,  great 
regard  for  finish,  and  something  of  Leonardo's  softness  in 
shadows  pitched  in  a  browner  key.  His  sentiment  was  rather 
exaggerated,  but  he,  nevertheless,  seems  to  have  influenced 
II  Greco.  Sanchez-Coello  (1515?-! 590)  though  born  in 
Valencia  was  painter  and  courtier  to  Philip  II,  and  achieved 
reputation  as  a  portrait-painter,  though  also  doing  some  altar- 
pieces.  It  is  doubtful  whether  he  ever  studied  in  Italy,  but 
he  was  for  a  time  under  Antonio  Moro,  and  learned  from  him 
something  of  rich  costumes,  ermines,  embroideries,  and  jewels, 
for  which  his  portraits  are  remarkable.  His  pupil,  Pantoja 
de  la  Cruz  (i55i?-i6o9),  followed  in  his  style  with  considerable 
success.  Navarrete  (i526?-i579),  called  "El  Mudo"  (the 
dumb  one),  certainly  was  in  Italy  for  many  years,  and  was 
there  a  disciple  of  Titian,  from  whom  he  doubtless  learned 
much  of  color.  He  was  responsible  for  introducing  warm 
Venetian  coloring  into  Spanish  art.  Theotocopuli  (1548?- 
1625),  called  "II  Greco"  (the  Greek),  was  another  Venetian- 
influenced  painter,  with  enough  Spanish  originality  about  him 
to  make  most  of  his  pictures  striking  in  color  and  drawing. 


2io  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

He  was  influenced  by  Tintoretto,  elongated  the  long  figures  of 
Tintoretto,  got  fusings  of  color  from  Venice,  from  old  stained 
glass,  from  colored  statuary  in  Spain,  and  then  added  to  these 


FIG.    99.  —  VELASQUEZ.      INFANTE   PHILIP   PROSPER.      IMPERIAL 
GALLERY,   VIENNA. 

a  weird  imagination  and  warped  individuality  of  his  own  to 
make  some  of  the  oddest  pictures  in  all  art.  They  look  as 
though  designed  for  stained  glass  and  have  great  decorative 
quality  but  as  representation  they  are  not  entirely  safe  or 


SPANISH  PAINTING  211 

sane.  Tristan  (i 586-1640)  was  his  best  follower.  II  Greco's 
son,  Jorge,  was  his  imitator  and  did  many  of  the  pictures  now 
assigned  to  his  father. 

Velasquez  (1 599-1660),  born  at  Seville  but  later  on  head 
ofthe'School  of  Madrid,  is  the  greatest  name  in  the  history 
of  Spanish  painting.  With  him  Spanish  art  took  upon  itself 
a  decidedly  naturalistic  and  national  stamp.  Before  his  time 
Italy  had  been  freely  imitated;  but  though  Velasquez  himself 
was  in  Italy  for  quite  a  long  time,  and  became  intimately 
acquainted  with  great  Italian  art,  he  never  seemed  to  have 
been  led  away  from  his  own  individual  way  of  seeing  and  doing. 
He  was  a  pupil  of  Herrera,  afterward  with  Pacheco,  and  learned 
much  from  Ribera  and  Ribalta,  but  more  from  a  direct  study 
of  nature  than  from  all  the  others.  He  was  in  a  broad  sense 
a  realist  —  a  man  who  recorded  the  material  and  the  actual 
without  emendation  or  transposition.  He  has  never  been 
surpassed  in  giving  the  solidity  and  substance  of  form  and  the 
placing  of  objects  in  atmosphere.  And  this,  not  in  a  small, 
finical  way,  but  with  a  breadth  of  view  and  of  treatment  which 
are  to-day  the  despair  of  painters.  There  was  nothing  of  the 
ethereal,  the  spiritual,  the  pietistic,  or  the  pathetic  about  him. 
He  never  for  a  moment  left  the  firm  basis  of  reality.  Standing 
upon  earth  he  recorded  the  truths  of  the  earth,  but  in  their 
largest,  fullest,  most  significant  forms.  He  is  always  calm, 
serene,  restful;  never  dramatic,  excited,  or  raving.  He  makes 
a  plain  statement  of  facts  and  wins  your  admiration  by  the 
largeness,  the  universality,  the  beauty  of  his  truth,  and  by 
the  prodigious  simplicity  of  his  means. 

Technically  his  was  a  master-hand,  doing  all  things  with 
ease,  giving  exact  relations  of  colors  and  lights,  and  placing 
everything  so  perfectly  that  no  addition  or  alteration  is  thought 
of.  With  the  brush  he  was  light,  easy,  sure.  The  surface 
looks  as  though  touched  once,  no  more.  It  is  the  perfection 
of  handling  through  its  simplicity  and  certainty,  and  has  not 


212 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 


the  slightest  trace  of  affectation  or  mannerism.  He  was  one 
of  the  few  Spanish  painters  who  were  enabled  to  shake  off 
the  yoke  of  the  Church.  Few  of  his  canvases  are  religious  in 
subject.  Under  royal  patronage  he  passed  almost  all  of  his 
life  in  painting  portraits  of  the  royal  family,  ministers  of  state, 
and  great  dignitaries.     As  a  portrait-painter  he  is  more  widely 

known  than  as  a  figure- 
painter.  Nevertheless  he 
did  many  canvases  like 
Las  Meninas,  The  Tapes- 
try Weavers,  and  The 
Surrender  at  Breda, 
which  attest  his  remark- 
able genius  in  that  field; 
and  even  in  landscape,  in 
genre,  in  animal  painting, 
he  was  a  very  wonderful 
man.  In  fact  Velasquez 
is  one  of  the  few  great 
painters  in  European  his- 
tory for  whom  there  is 
nothing  but  praise.  He 
was  the  full-rounded  com- 
plete painter,  intensely 
individual  and  self-asser- 
tive, and  yet  in  his  art 
recording  in  a  broad  way 
the  Spanish  type  and  life.  He  was  the  climax  of  Spanish 
painting,  and  after  him  there  was  a  rather  swift  decline,  as 
had  been  the  case  in  the  Italian  schools. 

Mazo  (i6i5?-i667>,  pupil  and  son-in-law  of  Velasquez,  was 
one  of  his  most  facile  imitators,  but  a  painter,  nevertheless, 
of  distinct  ability  who  did  excellent  portraits,  some  of  them 
now  assigned  to  Velasquez.     Carrefio  de  Miranda  (1614-16S5) 


FIG.    IOO.  —  MURILLO.      MADONNA    AND   CHILD. 
PITTI,   FLORENCE. 


SPANISH  PAINTING  213 

was  influenced  by  Velasquez,  and  for  a  time  his  assistant,  as 
was  also  Juan  de  Pareja  (1606-1670).  The  Castilian  school 
may  be  said  to  have  closed  with  these  late  men  and  with 
Claudio  Coello  (i623?-i6q3),  a  painter  with  an  ornate  style 
founded  on  Carreno  and  the  example  of  Italy,  whose  best 
work  was  of  considerable  force.  Spanish  painting  went  out 
with  Spanish  power,  and  only  men  of  small  rank  remained. 

ANDALUSIAN  SCHOOL:  The  earliest  pictures  in  Anda- 
lusia seem  French  in  character  mixed  with  some  Italian  influ- 
ences. A  school  did  not  come  into  existence  until  the  sixteenth 
century,  though  before  that  Sanchez  de  Castro  (fl.  c.  1475) 
had  some  local  reputation,  and  there  are  names  of  other  painters 
such  as  Bartolome  Bermejo  and  Alfonso  de  Baena.  The 
centre  of  the  school  was  at  Seville,  and  its  chief  "patron  was 
the  Church  rather  than  the  king.  Vargas  (1 502-1 568)  was 
probably  the  real  founder  of  the  school.  He  was  a  man  of 
much  fame  and  ability  in  his  time,  and  introduced  Italian 
methods  and  elegance  into  the  Andalusian  school  after  some 
years  of  residence  in  Italy.  He  is  said  to  have  studied  under 
Perino  del  Vaga,  and  there  is  some  sweetness  of  face  and  grace 
of  form  about  his  work  that  point  that  way,  though  his  com- 
position suggests  Correggio.  He  was  a  rather  conventional 
painter. 

Cespedes  (i538?-i6o8)  is  little  known  through  extant  works, 
but  he  achieved  fame  in  many  departments  during  his  life. 
He  is  said  to  have  been  in  Italy  under  Florentine  influence. 
One  of  the  best  painters  of  the  school  at  this  time  was  Roelas 
(1559-1625),  the  inspirer  of  Murillo  and  the  master  of  Zur- 
baran.  He  is  supposed  to  have  studied  at  Venice,  because  of 
his  rich,  glowing  color.  Most  of  his  works  are  religious  and 
are  found  chiefly  at  Seville.  He  began  life  as  a  licentiate, 
took  orders,  and  finally  turned  painter.  Pacheco  (1571- 
1654)  was  more  of  a  pedant  than  a  painter,  a  man  of  rule,  who 
to-day  might  be  written  down  an  academician.     His  draw- 


214  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

ing  was  hard,  and  his  painting  somewhat  crude.  Perhaps  the 
best  reason  for  his  being  remembered  is  that  he  was  one  of 
the  masters  and  the  father-in-law  of  Velasquez.  His  rival 
Herrera  the  Elder   (i576?-i656)   was  a  stronger  man  —  in 


FIG.    IOI.  —  GOYA.      PORTRAIT.      PRADO,    MADRID. 

fact,  the  most  original  artist  of  his  school.  He  struck  off 
by  himself  and  created  a  bold  realism  with  a  broad  brush  that 
anticipated  Velasquez  —  in  fact,  Velasquez  was  under  him 
for  a  time.  There  is  much  of  the  fine  dignity  and  sobriety 
that  afterward  appeared  in  Velasquez  already  apparent  in 
Herrera. 


SPANISH  PAINTING  215 

The  pure  Spanish  school  in  Andalusia,  as  distinct  from 
Italian  or  Flemish  imitation,  may  be  said  to  have  started  with 
Herrera.  It  was  further  advanced  by  another  independent 
painter,  Zurbaran  (1 598-1 663),  a  pupil  of  Roelas.  He  was 
a  painter  of  the  emaciated  monk  in  ecstasy,  and  many  other 
rather  dismal  religious  subjects  expressive  of  tortured  rapture. 
From  using  a  rather  dark  shadow  he  acquired  the  name  of 
the  Spanish  Caravaggio.  He  had  a  good  deal  of  Caravaggio's 
strength,  together  with  a  depth  and  breadth  of  color  suggestive 
of  the  Venetians.  He  was  the  best  painter  in  the  school  of 
Seville  notwithstanding  the  wide  reputation  of  his  younger 
contemporary,  Murillo.  Cano  (1601-1667),  a  pupil  of  Pacheco, 
though  he  never  was  in  Italy  had  the  name  of  the  Spanish 
Michelangelo,  probably  because  he  was  sculptor,  painter, 
and  architect.  His  painting  was  more  influenced  by  Raphael 
and  Murillo  than  Michelangelo.  It  was  eclectic  rather  than 
original  work  but  not  devoid  of  dignity  and  truth. 

Murillo  (1 618-1682)  is  generally  placed  at  the  head  of  the 
Andalusian  school,  as  Velasquez  at  the  head  of  the  Castilian. 
There  is  good  reason  for  it,  for  though  Murillo  was  not  the 
great  painter  he  was  sometime  supposed,  yet  he  was  not  the 
spineless  man  his  modern  critics  would  make  him  out.  A 
religious  painter  largely,  though  doing  some  genre  subjects 
like  his  beggar-boy  groups,  he  sought  for  religious  fervor  and 
found,  only  too  often,  sentimentality.  His  madonnas  are 
usually  after  the  Carlo  Dolci  pattern,  though  never  so  excessive 
in  sentiment.  This  was  not  the  case  with  his  earlier  works, 
mostly  of  humble  life,  which  were  painted  in  rather  a  hard, 
positive  manner.  Later  on  he  became  misty,  veiled  in  light 
and  effeminate  in  outline,  though  still  holding  grace.  Various 
influences  —  Van  Dyck  among  them  —  had  weakened  him. 
His  color  varied  with  his  early  and  later  styles.  It  was  usually 
gay  and  a  little  thin.  While  basing  his  work  on  nature  like 
Velasquez,  he  never  had  the  supreme  poise  of  that  master, 


2l6 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 


either  mentally  or  technically;  howbeit  he  was  a  painter, 
who  perhaps  justly  holds  high  place  in  Spanish  art.  His 
influence  upon  his  contemporaries  was  considerable.  Herrera 
the  Younger  (1622-1685)  and  Valdes  Leal  (1630-1691)  were 
his  followers,  and  in  the  next  generation  Palomino  (1653- 
1726),  the  art  writer  and  painter,  was  a  pupil  of  Leal. 

SCHOOL  OF  VALENCIA:  This  school  rose  contemporary 
with  the  Andalusian  school  from  which  it  was  never  far  re- 
moved, and  into  which  it  was  finally  merged  after  the  impor- 
tance of  Madrid  had  been  established.     It  was  largely  modelled 


FIG.    I02.  —  FORTDNY.      SERPENT   CHARMER.      WALTERS   GALLERY,  BALTIMORE. 

upon  Italian  and  Flemish  painting,  at  the  start.  There  were 
painters  there  in  the  thirteenth  century  of  whom  perhaps 
Jacomart  was  a  type  —  a  painter  accepting  both  Italian  and 
Flemish  influences.  Later  on  came  Vincente  Macip,  a 
Raphael  follower,  and  father  of  Juan  de  Juanes  (i507?-i579) 
who  apparently  was  an  early  leader  in  the  school.  He  seems 
to  have  painted  a  good  portrait,  but  in  other  respects  was  only 
a  fair  imitator  of  Raphael,  whom  he  had  studied  at  Rome.  A 
stronger  man  was  Francisco  de  Ribalta  (1 551-1628),  who  was 
perhaps  for  a  time  in  Italy  and  learned  there  Correggio's  scheme 
of  lighting,  and  elaborate  composition.  He  was  also  fond  of 
Raphael,  and  in  his  works  one  finds  suggestions  of  the  Urbinate. 


SPANISH  PAINTING 


217 


Ribalta  gave  an  early  training  to  Ribera  (1588-1656),  who  was 
the  most  important  man  of  this  school.  In  reality  Ribera 
was  more  Italian  than  Spanish,  for  he  spent  the  greater  part 
of  his  life  in  Italy,  where  he  was  called  Lo  Spagnoletto,  and  was 
greatly  influenced  by  Caravaggio.  He  was  a  Spaniard  in  the 
horrible  subjects  that  he  chose,  but  in  coarse  strength  of  model- 
ling, heaviness  of  shadows,  harsh  handling  of  the  brush,  he 
was  a  true  Neapolitan  Darkling.  A  pronounced  mannerist 
he  was  no  less  a  man  of  strength,  and  even  in  his  shadow- 
saturated  colors  a  painter  with  the  color  instinct.  In  Italy 
his  influence  in  the  time  of  the  Decadence  was  wide-spread, 
and  in  Spain  his  Italian  pupil,  Giordano,  introduced  his 
methods  for  late  imitation.  There  were  no  other  men  of 
high  rank  in  the  Valencian  school,  and,  as  has  been  said,  the 
school  was  eventually  merged  into  that  of  Andalusia. 

EIGHTEENTH-  AND  NINETEENTH-CENTURY  PAINTING 
IN  SPAIN:  Almost  directly  after  the  passing  of  Velasquez 
and  Murillo  Spanish  art  failed.  The  succeeding  courts 
called  on  Italy  and  Tiepolo  responded,  they  called  on 
France  and  followers  of  Boucher  responded;  but  the  native 
painters  of  Spain  could  merely  give  back  an  echo.  The 
eclectic  Mengs  seemed  the  admiration  of  the  Spanish  painters 
and  probably  their  destruction  as  painters.  The  eighteenth 
century,  as  in  Italy,  was  quite  barren  of  any  considerable  art 
until  near  its  close.  Then  Goya  (1 746-1828)  seems  to  have 
made  a  partial  restoration  ofpainting.  He  was  a  man  of 
peculiarly  Spanish  turn  of  mind,  fond  of  the  brutal  and  the 
bloody,  picturing  inquisition  scenes,  bull-fights,  battle  pieces, 
and  revelling  in  political  caricature,  sarcasm,  and  ridicule. 
His  imagination  was  grotesque  and  horrible,  but  as  a  painter 
his  art  was  based  on  the  natural,  and  was  exceedingly  strong. 
In  brush-work  he  followed  Velasquez ;  in  a  peculiar  forcing 
of  contrasts  in  light  and  dark  he  was  apparently  quite  himself, 
though  possibly   influenced  by   Ribera's  work.     He  himself 


2lS 


HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 


declared  his  indebtedness  to  Rembrandt.     His  best  work  shows 
in  his  portraits  and  etchings. 

After  Goya's  death  Spanish  art,  such  as  it  was,  rather 
followed  France,  with  the  extravagant  classicism  of  David  as 
a  model.     Then  in  due  time  it  responded  to    the  Romantic 

movement  and  later  on 
to  the  semi-classic  paint- 
ing of  France.  Historical 
works,  elaborate  in  tragic 
story  were  painted  by 
S\  A    Pradilla,  Carbonero,  Ca- 

sado,  and  others.  Some 
of  the  work  of  this  unin- 
spired time  may  be  seen 
in  the  Madrid  Museum 
and  the  Academy  of  San 
Fernando.  It  does  not 
call  for  mention  here. 

About  the  beginning  of 
the  i86o,s  Spanish  paint- 
ing made  a  new  advance 
with  Mariano  Fortuny 
(1838-1S74).  In  his  early 
years  he  had  worked  at 
historical  painting  and 
in  Paris  was  influenced 
by  Meissonier,  but  later 
on  he  went  to  Algiers  and  Rome,  finding  his  true  vent  in  a 
bright  sparkling  painting  of  genre  subjects,  oriental  scenes, 
streets,  interiors,  single  figures,  and  the  like.  He  excelled  in 
color,  sunlight  effects,  and  particularly  in  a  vivacious  facile 
handling  of  the  brush.  His  work  is  brilliant,  and  in  his  late 
productions  often  spotty  from  excessive  use  of  points  of  light 
in  high  color.     He  was  a  technician  of  much  brilliancy  and 


4 


FIG.    IO3.  —  SOROLLA.      AFTER   THE   BATH. 
METROPOLITAN   MUSEUM,      NEW   YORK. 


SPANISH  PAINTING 


219 


originality,  his  work  exciting  great  admiration  in  his  time  and 
leading  the  younger  painters  of  Spain  into  that  ornate  handling 
visible  in  their  works  to  this  day.  Many  of  these  latter,  from 
association  with  art  and  artists  in  Paris,  have  adopted  French 
methods,  and  hardly  show  such  a  thing  as  Spanish  nationality. 
Fortuny's  brother-in-law,  Madrazo  (1841-),  is  an  example  of 
a  Spanish  painter  turned  French  in  his  methods  —  a  facile  and 
brilliant  portrait-painter.  Zamacois  (1842-1871)  died  early, 
but  with  a  reputation  as  a  successful  portrayer  of  seventeenth- 
century  subjects  a  little  after  the  style  of  Meissonier  and  not 
unlike  Gerome.     He  was  a  good  if  somewhat  florid  colorist. 

Pageants  and  fetes  with  rich  costume,  fine  architecture  and 
vivid  effects  of  color,  are  characteristic  of  a  number  of  the 
modern  Spaniards  —  Villegas,  Luis  Jiminez  Aranda,  Alvarez. 
As  a  general  thing  their  canvases  are  a  little  flashy,  likely  to 
please  at  first  sight  but  grow  wearisome  after  a  time. 

Roman  Ribera  and  Domingo  have  rather  followed  the 
genre  style  of  Meissonier,  Rico  during  his  life  was  well 
known  for  his  bright  sparkling  Venetian  scenes,  and  Daniel 
Vierge  is/a  famous  illustrator  who  should  be  mentioned.  In 
recent  years  Sorolla  has  attracted  considerable  attention  by 
his  painting  of  bright  sunlight  and  motion,  Zuloaga,  a  strong 
painter,  has  done  work  in  the  vein  of  Velasquez  and  Goya 
that  has  commanded  much  attention,  and  Anglada  has  shown 
impressionistic  work  of  considerable  interest. 

EXTANT  WORKS:  Generally  speaking,  Spanish  art  cannot  be 
seen  to  advantage  outside  of  Spain.  Both  its  ancient  and  modern 
masterpieces  are  at  Madrid,  Seville,  Toledo,  and  elsewhere.  The 
Prado  and  Academy  of  San  Fernando  at  Madrid  have  the  most  and 
the  best  examples.  The  works  of  the  contemporary  painters  are 
largely  in  private  hands  where  reference  to  them  is  of  little  use  to  the 
average  student.  Thirty  or  more  Fortunys  are  in  the  United  States. 
Examples  of  Villegas,  Madrazo,  Rico,  Domingo,  and  others  are  in 
the  Vanderbilt  Gallery,  Metropolitan  Museum,  New  York;  Sorolla 
and  other  Spanish  masters  in  the  Hispanic  Society  Gallery. 


CHAPTER   XVII 
FLEMISH  PAINTING 

FROM    THE    BEGINNING    TO    THE    SIXTEENTH    CENTURY 

Books  Recommended:  Bernard,  Pierre  Breughel,  Boden- 
hausen,  Gerard  David;  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle,  Early  Flemish 
Painters;  Du  Jardin,  UArt  flamand;  Durand-Greville, 
Hubert  et  Jean  Van  Eyck;  Eisenmann,  The  Brothers  Van 
Eyck;  Fetis,  Les  Artistes  beiges  a  r Stranger;  Fierens-Gevaert, 
Les  Primitijs  flamands;  Germain,  Les  Neerlandais  en  Bour- 
gogne;  Goffin,  Thierry  Bouts;  Gossart,  Jeronimus  Bosch; 
Herbert,  Illuminated  Manuscripts;  Haisne,  UArt  dans  la 
Flandre;  Hyman,  Les  Van  Eyck;  (Waagen's)  Kligler,  Hand- 
book of  Painting  —  German,  Flemish,  and  Dutch  Schools; 
Laborde,  Les  Dues  de  Bourgogne;  Lafond,  Roger  van  der  Wey- 
den;  Lecoy  de  la  Marche,  Les  Miniaturistes  et  les  Miniatures; 
Lemonnier,  Historie  des  Beaux- Arts  en  Belgique;  Michiels, 
Histoire  de  la  Peinture  flamande;  Rooses,  Art  in  Flanders; 
Waagen,  Ueber  Hubert  und  Jan  Van  Eyck;  Wauters,  Flemish 
Painting;  Hans  Memling;  Rogier  van  der  Weyden;  Weale, 
Hubert  and  John  Van  Eyck. 

FLANDERS  AND  THE  FLEMISH  PEOPLE:  Flanders  means 
the  "submerged  lands"  —  that  is  the  netherlands  —  and 
in  repeating  the  history  of  its  art  the  geographical  limits 
must  not  be  drawn  too  exactly.  Its  art  was  wider  than 
its  political  divisions.  Germany,  Holland,  France  were  her 
border-neighbors  and  their  peoples  not  only  influenced  but  were 
influenced  by  Flanders.  So  it  is  that  Flemish  art  was  occasion- 
ally produced  in  places  not  strictly  Flemish. 

Individually  and  nationally  the  Flemings  were  strugglers 
against  adverse  circumstances  from  the  beginning.     A  realistic 


FLEMISH  PAINTING  221 

race  with  practical  ideas,  a  people  rather  warm  of  impulse  and 
free  in  habits,  they  combined  some  German  sentiment  with 
French  liveliness  and  gayety.  The  solidarity  of  the  nation 
was  not  accomplished  until  after  1384,  when  the  Dukes  of 
Burgundy  began  to  extend  their  power  over  the  Low  Countries. 
Then  the  Flemish  people  became  strong  enough  to  defy  both 
Germany  and  France,  and  wealthy  enough,  through  their 
commerce  with  Spain,  Italy,  and  France,  to  encourage  art  not 
only  at  the  ducal  court  but  in  the  churches,  and  among  the 
citizens  of  the  various  towns. 

MINIATURES  AND  ILLUMINATIONS:  The  earliest  work  of 
which  there  is  record  extant  is  to  be  found  in  the  manuscript 
illuminations  and  miniatures.  The  oldest  of  these  date  back 
to  the  eighth  century  and  show  figures  and  patterns  of  Byzan- 
tine origin.  They  were  very  coarse  at  first  but  gradually  im- 
proved up  to  the  twelfth  century  though  still  showing  the  old 
Byzantine  models.  In  the  fourteenth  century  they  became 
freer,  truer,  more  realistic,  more  beautiful.  The  Prayer 
Books,  Missals,  Books  of  Hours  from  the  fourteenth  to  the 
sixteenth  century  are  many  and  finally  show  a  technical  skill 
in  perfect  accord  with  the  panel  and  altar-piece  painting  that 
then  sprang  up.  Representative  examples  of  these  books 
dating  from  about  1400  are  the  Tres  Beau  Livre  d"1  H  cures 
in  the  Bibliotheque  Royale,  Brussels,  and  the  Tres  Riches 
Heures  of  the  Conde  Museum,  Chantilly.  The  Grimani 
Breviary  is  later  work,  done  after  1500,  and  is  much  like  the 
panel  painting  of  the  time  in  types  and  methods.  That  the 
panel  painting  of  Flanders  grew  out  of  the  miniature  painting 
there  can  be  little  doubt.  The  panels  first  took  the  form  of 
small  altar-pieces  with  a  centre  panel  and  side  wings  —  the 
triptych.  They  were  painted  with  white  of  egg  as  a  medium  — 
distemper;  though  oil  was  also  used.  There  is  a  long  list  of 
painters  before  the  Van  Eycks  who  used  oils.  The  early  altar- 
pieces  were  mechanical    in  their  painting  and  were  largely 


222 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 


decorative  but  they  improved  rapidly  and  before   the  Van 
Eycks  arrived  were  done  with  considerable  skill. 

FLEMISH  SUBJECTS 
AND  METHODS:  As  in 
all  the  countries  of  Europe, 
the  early  Flemish  panel 
painting  pictured  Chris- 
tian subjects  primarily. 
The  triptychs  were  for 
chapel  or  church  altar- 
pieces,  though  side  by  side 
with  them  was  an  admir- 
able portraiture,  some 
knowledge  of  landscape, 
and  some  illustration  of 
semi-historical  or  national 
subjects.  In  means  and 
methods  it  was  quite 
original.  The  Flemings 
seem  to  have  begun  by 
themselves,  and  pictured 
life  in  their  own  way. 
They  were  apparently  not 
influenced  at  first  by  Italy. 
There  were  no  antique 
influences,  no  excavated 
marbles  to  copy,  nothing 
except  the  Byzantine  tra- 
ditions to  follow  and  they 
were  soon  discarded.  At 
first  their  art  was  exact 
and  minute  in  detail,  but 
not  too  well  grasped  in  the 
mass.     The  compositions  were  huddled,  the  landscapes  pure 


FIG.    104.  —  VAN   EYCK.      SINGING   ANGELS. 
KAISER-FRIEDRICH   MUSEUM,    BERLIN. 


FLEMISH  PAINTING 


223 


but  a  trifle  finical,  the  figures  inclined  to  slimness,  awkward- 
ness, and  angularity  in  the  lines  of  form  or  drapery,  and  un- 
certainty in  action.  To  offset  this  there  was  a  positive  realism 
in  textures,  perspective,  color,  tone,  light,  and  atmosphere. 
The  effect  of  the  whole  was  odd  and  strained,  but  the  effect 
of  the  part  was  to  convince  one  that  the  early  Flemish  paint- 
ers were  excellent  craftsmen  in  detail,  skilled  with  the  brush, 
and  shrewd  observers  of  nature  in  a  purely  picturesque  way. 

To  the  Flemish  painters  of  the  fifteenth  century  belongs, 
not  the  invention  of  oil-painting,  for  it  was  known  before 
their  time,  but  its  acceptable  application  in  picture-making. 
They  applied  oil  with  color  to  produce  brilliancy  and  warmth 
of  effect,  to  insure  firmness  and  body  in  the  work,  and  to  carry 
out  textural  effects  in  stuffs,  marbles,  metals,  and  the  like. 
So  far  as  we  know  there  never  was  much  use  of  distemper 
or  fresco-work  upon  the  walls  of  buildings.  The  oil  medium 
came  into  vogue  when  painting  upon  wood  in  altar-panels 
was  taken  up.  It  was  sometime  afterward  before  painting 
in  oil  upon  canvas  was  adopted. 

SCHOOL  OF  BRUGES:  There  are  names  of  panel  painters 
that  occur  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century  —  contem- 
poraries of  Malouel,  Bellechose,  and  Broederlam  mentioned 
under  early  French  painting  —  but  their  work  need  not  detain 
us.  Flemish  art  for  us  begins  with  Hubert  van  Eyck  (1370?- 
1426)  and  his  younger  brother  Jan  van  Eyck  (i3oo?-i44i). 
The  elder  brother  is  supposed  to  have  been  the  better  painter, 
because  the  most  celebrated  work  of  the  brothers  —  the  St. 
Bavon  altar-piece,  parts  of  which  are  in  Ghent,  Brussels,  and 
Berlin  —  bears  the  inscription  that  Hubert  began  it  and  Jan 
finished  it.  —  Hubert  was  no  doubt  an  excellent  painter,  but 
his  attributed  pictures  are  few  and  there  is  much  discussion 
whether  he  or  Jan  painted  them.  Even  in  the  St.  Bavon 
altar-piece  there  is  confusion,  for  the  broader,  freer  handled 
portions  of  it  are  given  to  Hubert  who  was  earlier  by  twenty 


224  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

years  than  his  brother  and  might  be  supposed  less  free  with  the 
brush.  For  historical  purposes  Flemish  art  was  begun,  and 
almost  completed,  by  Jan  van  Eyck.  He  had  all  the  attributes 
of  the  early  men,  and  was  one  of  the  most  perfect  of  Flemish 
painters.  He  painted  real  forms  and  real  life,  gave  them  a 
setting  in  true  perspective  and  light,  and  put  in  background 
landscapes  with  a  truthful  if  minute  regard  for  the  facts.  His 
figures  in  action  had  occasionally  some  awkwardness,  but 
usually  they  stood  well,  had  repose,  dignity,  great  seriousness 


FIG.    IOS.  —  VAN   DER   WEYDEN.      PIETA.      BRUSSELS    MUSEUM. 

and  sincerity  of  mood.  His  modelling  of  faces,  his  rendering 
of  textures  in  cloth,  metal,  stone,  and  the  like,  his  delicate 
yet  firm  facturc,  his  brilliant  color,  his  fine  decorative  patterns, 
were  all  rather  remarkable  for  his  time.  None  of  this  early 
Flemish  art  has  the  grandeur  of  Italian  composition,  but 
in  realistic  detail,  in  landscape,  architecture,  figure,  and 
costume,  in  pathos,  sincerity,  and  sentiment  it  is  unsurpassed 
by  any  fifteenth-century  art.  Jan  van  Eyck  painted  many 
fine  altar-pieces  the  best  of  them  now  extant  being  the  wonder- 
ful Van  der  Paele  Madonna  at  Bruges.     And  he  practically 


FLEMISH  PAINTING  225 

inaugurated  a  superb  portraiture  upon  panel  than  which 
nothing  could  be  more  sincere,  direct,  or  noble.  The  so-called 
Arnolfini  portraits  in  the  National  Gallery,  London,  is  an 
elaborate  illustration  but  his  single  heads  are  quite  as  fine 
in  their  way. 

Little  is  known  of  the  personal  history  of  either  of  the  Van 
Eycks.  They  left  an  influence  and  had  many  followers,  but 
whether  these  were  direct  pupils  or  not  is  an  open  question. 
Peter  Cristus  (i4oo?-i472)  was  perhaps  a  pupil  of  Jan,  though 
more  likely  a  follower  of  his  methods  in  color  and  general 
technique.  He  had  not  the  initial  force  of  the  Van  Eycks 
though  some  pictures  assigned  to  him  in  Berlin  and 
Brussels  (Pieta)  are  remarkable  for  their  excellent  simplic- 
ity of  composition  and  their  rich  coloring.  His  work  is 
not  rightly  apprehended  because  as  yet  not  quite  rightly 
attributed. 

SCHOOL  OF  TOURNAI:  Contemporary  with  the  Van 
Eycks  there  came  into  existence  a  school  of  painting  in  Tournai 
supposed  to  have  been  founded  by  an  obscure  Robert  Campin 
(fl.  1406-1450).  He  was  first  known  as  and  called  the  Master 
of  Merode,  then  the  Master  of  Flemalle,  from  works  of  his  now 
in  the  Frankfort  Staedel  Institute,  but  formerly  at  the  Abbey 
of  Flemalle.  He  was  a  painter  of  shrewd  observation  for 
his  time  and  considerable  ability.  His  drawing  is  expressive, 
his  color  harmonious,  his  surfaces  attractive.  Moreover  to 
truth  he  added  sincerity  and  feeling.  Akin  in  art  to  Campin, 
and  probably  his  pupil,  was  Jacques  Daret  (fl.  1427-1468)  but 
he  was  not  Campin's  equal.  The  Berlin  pictures  ascribed  to 
him  are  more  prosaic  in  sentiment  and  commonplace  in  work- 
manship. Another  painter  who  worked  as  Campin's  assistant 
for  a  time,  Roger  van  der  Weyden  (1399-1464),  sometimes 
called  Roger  de  la  Pasture,  went  far  beyond  his  master.  He 
settled  in  Brussels,  traveled  to  Rome,  and  was  one  of  the  learned 
painters  of  the  time.     He  had  not  Jan  van  Eyck's  skill,  nor 


226 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 


his  detail,  nor  his  color.  He  was  more  of  a  linear  draftsman 
than  a  colorist,  and  was  angular  in  figures  and  in  drapery; 
but  he  had  great  intensity,  tragic  power,  wonderful  pathos. 
His  angularity  and  emotional  exaggeration  should  not  blind 
one  to  his  technical  skill.  His  pictures  are  much  confused 
as  regards  their  attributions  but  such  genuine  examples  as  the 


FIG.    106.  —  BOUTS.      GATHERING   MANNA.      MUNICH   GALLERY. 

Descent  in  the  Escorial,  the  Pieta  at  Brussels,  and  the  newly 
acquired  triptych  in  the  Louvre,  all  point  to  a  very  profound 
and  learned  early  master.  His  decorative  sense  as  shown  in 
his  patterns,  brocades,  and  colors,  with  his  delightful  back- 
ground landscapes,  should  be  closely  examined.  The  Tournai 
school  seems  to  have  come  to  an  end  with  Roger. 


FLEMISH  PAINTING  227 

Painters  moved  about  freely  in  the  Netherlands  at  this 
time  and  their  birthplace  is  slight  indication  of  their  place  in 
art.  For  instance,  Thierry  Bouts  (i4io?-i475)  was  born  in 
Haarlem  at  the  north  but  he  moved  to  Louvain  and  worked 
there  in  the  Flemish  style.  In  fact  his  style  suggests  the 
influence  of  Van  der  Weyden  though  he  went  beyond  all  the 
Flemish  painters  in  the  details  of  his  costume,  the  beauty  of 
his  still-life,  and  the  rich  depth  of  his  textures  and  surfaces. 
His  figures  are  quite  as  angular  as  Van  der  Weyden's,  they  are 
awrkward  and  often  do  not  walk  or  stand  well;  but  they  have 
wonderful  dignity  and  sincerity  and  in  richness  of  coloring 
their  costumes  are  almost  jewTel-like.  This  is  well  shown  in 
the  scattered  fragments  of  the  Louvain  altar-piece  than  which 
nothing  finer  was  ever  painted  in  the  early  Flemish  school. 
The  wings  of  this  altar-piece  also  reveal  wonderful  insight  into 
landscape,  sunlight  effects,  sea  scenes.  Elsewhere  he  shows 
a  knowledge  of  moonlight  effects.  The  Emperor  Otho  pictures 
at  Brussels  are  marvels  of  characterization  and  dignified  por- 
traiture. Bouts  wras  a  learned  man  and  a  superb  technician. 
He  left  a  son,  Albert  Bouts,  who  followed  his  father's  methods 
and  copied  many  of  his  pictures. 

Out  of  Zeeland  at  the  north  came  another  painter  who 
adopted  Flemish  methods  —  Hugo  van  der  Goes  (i44o?-i482). 
He  had  a  strong  northern  individuality  that  shows  in  his  rather 
coarse  types,  hard  modelling,  and  severe  line,  but  his  rigid 
characterization  was  much  modified  by  fine  feeling  and  very 
sincere  sentiment.  This  shows  in  his  great  masterpiece  in  the 
Uffizi,  the  Portinari  altar-piece.  It  had  much  influence  upon 
the  Florentine  painters  of  the  day  and  many  realistic  features 
of  it  were  copied  by  painters  like  Ghirlandajo.  There  are 
numerous  Madonna  heads  and  some  portraits  now  assigned 
to  Van  der  Goes  but  they  are  slight  works  and  not  too  authentic. 
Hans  Memling  (i43o?-i494)  probably  came  from  the  Rhine- 
land,  near  Mayence,  though  in  art  he  is  a  true  Fleming,  follow- 


228 


HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 


ing  the  Van  Eyck-Van  der  Weyden  tradition.  He  is  a  con- 
trast to  Van  der  Goes  in  that  he  is  less  rugged,  and  more 
graceful.     He  has  fine  sentiment  and  much  sweetness  of  mood 


FIG.    107.  —  MEMLING.      BARBARA   DE   VLAENDERBERGHE.     BRUSSELS    MUSEUM. 

with  attractive  pathetic  types.  There  is  no  dramatic  quality 
about  him.  His  figures  are  quiet,  restful,  calmly  dignified. 
His  arabesques  and  decorative  patterns,  with  his  landscape 
backgrounds  are  excellent  and  occasionally  he  sounds  a  fine 


FLEMISH  PAINTING 


229 


note  of  color.  Some  superb  small  portraits  are  assigned  to 
him,  and  others  of  the  same  style  are  given  to  Van  der  Weyden. 
Mending's  notable  works  are  in  the  Hospital  of  St.  John  at 
Bruges. 

Gerard  David  (1460?-]:  5 23)  was  probably  a  pupil  of  Mem- 
ling.  His  pictures  have  only  recently  been  restored  to  him, 
they  having  been  attributed  to  others  for  many  years.  The 
best  examples  are  in  the  Bruges  Museum  and  the  National 
Gallery,  London.  His  pictures  are  like  those  of  Memling  in 
their  repose,  reserve,  and  dignity.  Perhaps  they  have  less 
mental  and  technical  stamina  than  the  works  of  the  early 
men,  though  this  is  not  very  marked.  They  are  usually  fine 
in  color  and  texture,  with  good  drawing.  The  background 
landscapes  are  remarkable  in  their  observation  of  natural 
effects.  These  have  been  attributed  by  some  to  Patinir  but 
Patinir  was  probably  a  pupil  of  David  and  took  his  idea  of 
landscape  from  David.  Adriaen  Isenbrant  (fl.  1509-1551) 
came  from  Haarlem,  but  historically  he  is  only  a  name  on  a 
register.  We  have  no  positive  knowledge  of  any  work  by 
him  but  he  was  said  to  be  a  pupil  of  David  and  pictures  not 
good  enough  for  David  are  now  assigned  to  Isenbrant.  Cer- 
tain pictures  attributed  to  him  have  a  David-Patinir  look' and 
were  undoubtedly  painted  by  some  one  painter  whom  it  is 
now  agreed  to  call  Isenbrant.  That  is  all  known  about  him. 
Jean  Prevost  (1462-15 29)  and  Ambrosius  Benson  (fl.  1519- 
1547)  are  other  little  known  painters  of  the  time.  Certain 
works  signed  A.  B.  are  given  to  Benson  with  some  strain  upon 
probability.  They  are  fairly  good  in  workmanship.  Gerard 
van  der  Meire,  again,  is  little  more  than  a  name  in  art  history. 

ANTWERP  SCHOOL:  There  had  been  painters  at  Antwerp 
in  the  early  days  and  later  David,  Benson,  and  others  were 
there  but  the  school  really  began  with  Quentin  Metsys  (1466- 
1530).  Metsys  was  a  resourceful  man,  producing  a  varied 
art,  and  yet  always  remaining  a  Flemish  primitive  while  sug- 


230 


HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 


gesting  and  pointing  the  way  to  a  more  cosmopolitan  art. 
He  followed  the  old  Flemish  methods  but  added  many  improve- 
ments.    His  work  was  detailed  and  yet  executed  with  a  broader 


FIG.    108.  —  DAVID.      BAPTISM   OF   CHRIST.      BRUGES   MUSEUM. 


brush  than  formerly  and  with  greater  variety  in  drawing, 
modelling,  coloring,  and  facial  expression.  He  increased 
figures  to  almost  life-size,  enlarged  and  elaborated  the  composi- 


FLEMISH  PAINTING  231 

tion,  and  practically  produced  monumental  altar-pieces  in 
such  works  as  the  Entombment  at  Antwerp.  In  form,  color, 
and  landscape  backgrounds  he  was  quite  wonderful  and  to 
these  he  added  strong  characterization  and  tragic  power.  His 
portraits  are  not  too  well  authenticated  and  many  miser  pic- 
tures attributed  to  him  were  painted  by  Marinus  van  Roy- 
merswael  (fl.  1500-15  21). 

Juste  van  Cleve  (fl.  1511-1540)  is  supposed  to  be  identical 
with  the  painter  formerly  known  as  the  Master  of  the  Death 
of  the  Virgin.  He  was  a  fairly  good  painter  following  Metsys 
but  without  the  originality  of  Metsys.  Patinir  (1480?-]:  5  24) 
was  a  landscape  painter  and  a  pupil  of  Gerard  David.  His 
landscapes  are  excellent  in  perspective,  air,  and  light  though 
often  dark  in  illumination  and  sombre  with  deep  blues  and 
greens.  He  used  figures  with  his  landscape  and  his  work  is 
confused  with  that  of  David,  Isenbrandt,  and  Bles.  Herri 
Met  de  Bles  (fl.  1550)  has  at  present  many  contradictory 
pictures  assigned  to  him  both  in  figures  and  in  landscapes. 
Some  writers  confound  him  with  Patinir  and  say  he  was  wholly 
a  landscapist;  others  attribute  to  him  figure  pieces,  rich  in 
color,  costume,  and  detail,  that  seem  to  have  been  produced 
under  the  influence  of  Metsys.  The  former  are  seen  in  the 
Vienna  Museum;  the  latter  at  the  Brussels  and  Antwerp 
Museums. 

From  Metsys  and  Roymerswael  there  seems  to  have  devel- 
oped a  number  of  strong  painters  with  Flemish  characteristics 
who  followed  the  Flemish  tradition  of  exact  truth  but  aban- 
doned minuteness  for  the  broader  treatment  indicated  by 
Metsys.  They  also  changed  the  scale,  gave  larger  figures, 
used  peasant  types  even  in  sacred  scenes,  and  portrayed  more 
realistically  the  Flemish  life  of  the  time.  Jan  Saunders  van 
Hemessen  (fl.  1536— 1555)  was  of  this  class  and  yet  his  types 
were  less  virile  than  those  of  Aertsen.  His  figures  were  large 
but  with  smooth  contours  and  rather  pretty  faces  that  weak- 


232  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

encd  his  work.  He  is  thought  to  be  identical  with  the 
painter  known  as  the  Monogrammist  of  Brunswick.  Pieter 
Aertsen  (i507?-i575)  painted  subjects  similar  to  Hemessen's 
but  he  was  much  more  powerful  —  in  fact  one  of  the 
strongest  painters  in  Flemish  art.  Most  of  his  pictures  are 
genre  or  still -life,  despite  his  occasional  religious  subject. 
He  treated  everything  in  a  still-life  way.  His  work  is  realistic 
and  representative,  large  in  drawing  and  modelling,  and 
superbly  broad  and  sure  in  handling.  The  pictures  of  cooks 
and  kitchens  in  the  Brussels  Museum  might  have  inspired 
Vollon  or  Manet  so  excellent  are  they  in  pure  painter's  paint- 
ing. His  best  pupil  was  Beuckelaer  (1530?-! 5 73),  who  painted 
the  same  kind  of  subjects  as  his  master.  Whatever  the  name 
he  gave  his  pictures  they  received  still-life  treatment.  His 
vegetable  stalls  and  kitchen  interiors  show  his  painting  to  the 
best  advantage.  Both  he  and  Aertsen  used  bright  and  rather 
harsh  colors  with  broad  but  coarse  brushes.  Their  skill 
and  their  power  has  never  been  rightly  appreciated. 

The  realistic  tendency  of  Flemish  art  so  pronounced  in 
Aertsen  and  Beuckelaer,  with  the  disposition  to  picture  peas- 
ant types,  was  indicated  early  in  the  work  of  Jerome  Bosch 
(1460-1516),  a  fanciful  soul  who  conjured  up  fantastic  scenes 
of  both  good  and  evil  and  bodied  them  forth  in  a  realistic  way. 
He  delighted  in  devils,  chimeras,  goblins,  strange  lights, 
weird  landscapes,  crowded  compositions,  in  gay  color,  flat 
modelling,  fat  painting.  His  fancy  is  too  uncanny,  too  gro- 
tesque to  follow,  but  his  brush  is  that  of  a  true  painter  and 
his  color  is  often  inspired.  Pieter  Brueghel  or  Breughel  (1525- 
1569),  called  Peasant  Brueghel,  took  up  the  painting  of  the 
Flemish  peasant  in  country,  village,  and  tavern  with  a  new 
and  pronounced  realism  of  a  most  distinguished  character. 
Here  again  is  a  painter,  as  yet  appreciated  by  only  a  small 
group  of  artists  and  writers.  His  Seasons  pictures  at  the 
Vienna  Gallery  are  as  modern  in  their  painting  as  though 


FLEMISH  PAINTING 


233 


done  yesterday.  They  are  wonderful  revelations  of  light, 
air,  value,  color.  The  painting  is  flat,  the  handling  direct 
and  simple,  the  pigments  not  loaded  but  thinly  spread.     These 


FIG.    109.  —  METSYS.      MADONNA. 
KAISER-FRIEDRICH   MUSEUM,   BERLIN. 


landscapes  with  figures  are  not  more  wonderful  than  his  peas- 
ant figures  shown  in  tavern  carouses.  The  pigments  here 
are  laid  on  thicker,  the  color  is  vivid,  the  drawing  is  in  large 
color  patches,  the  modelling  is  given  by  reliefs  or  gradations 
of  color.     Add  to  this  technical  equipment  the  painter's  strong 


234  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

characterization  of  the  peasant  types  and  we  have  as  truthful 
and  as  virile  art  as  ever  came  out  of  Flanders.  His  son  Pieter 
Brueghel  the  Younger  (i 564-1 639),  sometimes  called  "Hell" 
Brueghel,  from  his  pictures  of  the  Inferno,  followed  his  father's 
style  and  copied  many  of  his  pictures.  Pieter  Balten  (fl.  1540- 
1600)  was  another  Brueghel  pupil  of  some  note. 

These  last  mentioned  painters  of  realistic  life  came  late  in 
the  century  and  held  fast  to  Flemish  types  and  ideals.  Before 
their  time,  and  contemporary  with  them,  many  of  the  Flemish 
painters  had  taken  up  with  Italian  ideals  as  we  shall  see  in 
the   next   chapter. 

EXTANT  WORKS:  The  Flemish  Primitives  are  still  to  be  seen 
best  in  Belgian  galleries  and  churches  —  at  Brussels,  Antwerp,  Bruges, 
Ghent,  Louvain  and  elsewhere.  There  are  also  many  examples  of 
them  in  the  galleries  of  Berlin,  Dresden,  Vienna,  Paris,  London.  In 
the  United  States  the  best  representation  is  in  the  Metropolitan 
Museum.  There  are  also  a  few  examples  in  the  N.Y.  Historical 
Society  Rooms,  and  the  Boston  Museum. 


CHAPTER   XVIII 
LATE   FLEMISH  AND   BELGIAN   PAINTING 

SEVENTEENTH   TO    THE   TWENTIETH   CENTURY 

Books  Recommended:  As  before  the  General  Bibliography 
and  books  at  head  of  Chapter  XVII,  also:  Bode,  Masters  of 
Dutch  and  Flemish  Painting;  Buschmann,  Jacques  Jordaens; 
Cust,  Van  Dyck;  Dillon,  Rubens;  Fierens-Gevaert,  Jordaens; 
Van  Dyck;  Fromentin,  Old  Masters  of  Belgium  and  Holland; 
Geffroy,  Rubens;  Gerrits,  Rubens,  zyn  Tyd,  etc.;  Guiffrey, 
Van  Dyck;  Hasselt,  Histoire  de  Rubens;  Mantz,  Adrien 
Brouwer;  Michel,  Rubens;  Muther,  Die  Belgische  Malerei; 
Peyre,  Teniers;  Rooses,  Rubens;  Chefs  d'ceuvres  d'Antoine  Van 
Dyck;  Schmidt-Degener,  Adrien  Brouwer;  Stevenson,  Rubens; 
Van  den  Branden,  Geschiedenis  der  Antwerpsche  Schilder school; 
Van  Mander,  Le  Lime  des  Peintres. 

FLEMISH  PAINTING  IN  THE  SIXTEENTH  CENTURY: 
In  this  century  Flemish  painting  became  rather  widely 
diffused.  The  local  schools  at  Bruges,  Tournai,  and 
elsewhere  gave  place  to  the  schools  in  the  large  cities  like 
Antwerp  and  Brussels,  and  the  commercial  relations  between 
the  Low  Countries  and  Italy  finally  led  to  a  change  in  the  char- 
acter of  the  native  art.  Many  Flemish  painters  went  to  Italy 
for  study,  remained  there  for  years,  and  when  finally  they 
returned  to  Flanders  they  brought  with  them  Italian  types, 
forms,  and  methods.  There  was  an  attempt  at  first  at  assim- 
ilation —  taking  what  was  elevated  in  Italian  art  and  graft- 
ing it  upon  the  Flemish  stalk  —  but  there  resulted  a  hybrid 
art  that  was  neither  one  thing  nor  the  other  though  skil- 
fully composed  and  cunningly  put  together. 


236  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

ITALIANIZED  FLEMINGS:    Suggestion  of  Italian  study  was 
given  in  the  work  of  some  of  the  late  Flemish  Primitives  but 
the  painter  who  first  gave  positive  demonstration  of  it  was 
Justus  of  Ghent  (fl.  c.  1468).     He  was  in  Italy  for  so  many 
years  and  became  so  completely  Italian  in  art  that  the  Fleming 
in  him  is  seen  only  in  an  awkwardness  of  form,  an  angularity 
of  type,  and  a  minuteness  of  finish.    His  extant  works  are  scarce 
and  are  confused,  in  the  bargain,  with  the  works  of  Melozzo 
da  Forli.     Jan  Gossart  (1472?-! 541)  called  Mabuse,  from  his 
native  place  of  Alaubeuge,  marks  the  transition  style  better 
than  Justus  of  Ghent  because  less  extreme  in  his  Italian  fol- 
lowing.    He  brought    back  from  Italy  classic  composition, 
architecture,  nude  figures,  but  these  he  gave  with  a  Flemish, 
brush  in  drawing,  color,  surface.      And  with  realistic  detail. 
His  technique  was  a  little  out  of  keeping  with  the  historical 
canvas  of  the  Italians.    The  incongruity  shows  in  the  large 
Adoration  of  Kings  in  the  National  Gallery,  London.     The 
size  of  the  composition  renders  the  handling  petty  and  in- 
sufficient.    Still,  Gossart  was  a  clever  painter  though  he  lacked 
originality  and  at  times  approaches  the  affected,  even  the 
decadent.     Bernard  van  Orley  (1493-1542)  was  of  a  similar 
cast  of  mind  to  Gossart.     He  went  to  Italy  from  Brussels 
on  two  different  occasions,  may  have  met  Raphael,  and  was 
undoubtedly  influenced  by  the  work  of  both   Raphael   and 
Michelangelo.    He  borrowed  Italian  composition,  architecture, 
types,  and  yet  always  retained   a   peculiar  Flemish  tang  in 
his  work.     His  nude   figures   are  well   drawn,   academically 
posed,   gracefully    arranged,  though   at    times   crowded  and 
exaggerated   in  movement.      Cornells  van  Coninxloo  (1529- 
1558)  was  over-elaborate  in  architectural  ornament,  as  appears 
from  the  few  pictures  by  him  now  in  existence,  but  Flemish 
enough  in  his  types. 

ITALIAN  IMITATORS:    After  these  painters  came  a  group 
of  Italianized  Flemings  who  were  little  more  than  imitators 


LATE   FLEMISH  AND   BELGIAN  PAINTING  237 

of  Italian  art  —  imitators  of  the  decadent  Italian  at  that. 
They  followed  not  nature  but  the  established  conventions  of 
the  Bolognese  Eclectics  and  Roman  Mannerists.  Naturally 
they  lost  Flemish  originality  to  a  poor  imitation  of  Raphael 
and  Michelangelo.  Michael  van  Coxcyen  or  Coxie  (1499-1592) 
lived  long,  became  famous,  and  was  an  excellent  crafts- 
man; but  he  lacked  orig- 
inality and  even  individu- 
ality. Lambert  Lombard 
(1 505-1 566),  of  whose 
work  we  know  little,  and 
Pieter  Pourbus  (1510- 
1584)  followed  in  the 
same  vein  of  subservi- 
ency to  Italy  —  the  latter 
a  painter  of  excellent  por- 
traits. Jan  Metsys  (1509- 
1575),  son  of  Quentin 
Metsys,  probably  fol- 
lowed his  father  at  first, 
but  later  painted  large 
half-length  nudes,  pretty 
in  type,  line,  and  senti- 
ment, pallid  in  flesh,  and 
smooth  in  surface.  Frans 
Floris  (i5i6?-i57o)  was 
a  man  of  talent  who  be- 
came famous  largely  through  his  pictorial  reminiscences  of 
Michelangelo  —  a  cold,  academic  painter  who,  however,  did 
good  portraits.  Martin  de  Vos  (1531-1613),  influenced  by 
Floris,  showed  facility  and  ability  in  religious  themes  but  his 
work  was  prosaic  and  uninspired.  His  portraits  are  careful 
work  but  too  exact  and  too  glassy  in  surface.  Otto  Vaenius 
or  Van  Veen  (1 558-1629)  was  a  learned  painter  of  large  full 


FIG.    I IO. — ANTONIO   MORO.      MARGARET   OF  PARMA. 
KAISER-FRXEDRICH    MUSEUM,    BERLIN. 


238  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

types  with  much  color  and  imposing  composition  but,  again,  a 
painter  of  no  great  initial  force.  He  was  the  last  master  of 
Rubens  and  influenced  his  pupil  in  largeness  of  form,  in  florid 
color,  and  in  fluid  handling.  Ambrosius  Francken  (1544- 
161S),  Lucas  de  Heere  (1534-1584),  Denis  Calvaert  (1540- 
1619),  Spranger  (1546-1627),  were  other  followers  of  Italy 
who  lost  their  artistic  souls  to  strange  gods  but  were,  never- 
theless, skilled  painters. 

PORTRAIT  AND  LANDSCAPE  PAINTERS:  The  converted 
Romanists  in  Flanders  were  usually  good  portrait  painters 
and  so,  too,  were  a  group  of  men  who  clung  to  Flemish 
ideals  and  were  not  conspicuously  influenced  by  Italy. 
Among  these  latter  were  Willem  Key  (15 15-1568),  Adriaen 
Key  (1558-1589),  Juste  van  Cleve  the  Fool  (1518-?),  Neu- 
chatel  (i527?-i590?).  But  the  best  of  them  all  was  Antonio 
Moro  (1 519-1576).  He  travelled  about  Europe  a  good  deal, 
was  in  Rome,  Madrid,  London,  painting  nobility  everywhere 
and  everywhere  leaving  an  impress  and  an  influence.  He  was 
the  most  accomplished  and  satisfactory  portrait  painter  of 
his  time,  near  of  kin  artistically  to  Holbein  though  opening 
the  way  for  Rubens  and  Van  Dyck.  His  portraits  are  exact, 
truthful,  realistic,  full  of  character,  and  yet  well  placed  on  the 
canvas  and  often  decoratively  beautiful  in  their  detail.  Frans 
Pourbus  II  (1569-1622)  also  painted  aristocratic  sitters  with 
good  results  but  he  had  not  Moro's  dignity  nor  virility. 

With  portrait  painters  mirroring  the  fashions  of  courts  and 
figure  painters  imitating  Italy  there  were  still  a  few  painters 
left  on  Flemish  soil  who  did  native  themes  in  a  native  way. 
Besides  the  home-staying  portrait  painters  there  were  some 
notable  landscapists  and  genre  painters.  Mention  has  been 
made  of  the  Elder  Brueghel  and  his  son,  of  Aertsen,  and  of 
Beuckelaer.  The  Elder  Brueghel's  follower,  Lucas  van  Valck- 
enbergh  (i54o?-i625?),  in  a  series  of  landscapes  now  in  the 
Vienna  Museum  shows  a  decorative  sense  though  he  is  not 


LATE   FLEMISH  AND  BELGIAN  PAINTING 


239 


strong  technically.  Josse  de  Mompers  (1564-163 5)  with 
his  mountain  scenes,  forced  in  their  contrasts  of  dark  fore- 
ground and  light  distance,  perhaps  set  the  example  for  suc- 
ceeding Rembrandtesque  landscapes.    Paul  Bril  (1556-1626), 


FIG.    III.  —  RUBENS.      RESURRECTION   OF  LAZARUS. 
KAISER-FRTEDRICH   MUSEUM,   BERLIN. 

small  and  minute  in  style  at  first,  and  later  large  and  decora- 
tive, instead  of  being  influenced  by  Italy  taught  the  Italians 
his  own  view  of  landscape.  His  work  was  a  little  dry  and 
formal  but  graceful  in  composition. 

SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY  PAINTING:   This  was  the  great 
century  of  Flemish  painting,  though  the  painting  was  not 


240  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

entirely  Flemish  in  form  or  thought.  The  influence  of  Italy 
had  done  away  with  the  early  simplicity,  sincerity,  and  religious 
pathos  of  the  Van  Eycks.  During  the  sixteenth  century 
almost  everything  had  run  to  imitation  of  Renaissance  methods. 
Then  came  a  new  master-genius,  Rubens  (i 577-1640),  who 
formed  a  new  art  founded  upon  Italy,  yet  distinctly  northern 
in  character.  Rubens  chose  all  subjects  for  his  brush,  but  the 
religious  theme  probably  occupied  him  more  than  any  other 
because  most  in  demand  among  the  Flemish  churches.  To 
this  theme  in  altar-piece  or  ceiling  decoration,  he  added  little 
of  Gothic  sentiment,  but  everything  of  Renaissance  splendor. 
His  art  was  more  material  than  spiritual,  more  brilliant  and 
startling  in  sensuous  qualities,  such  as  line  and  color,  than 
charming  by  facial  expression  or  tender  feeling.  Yet  he  was 
not  without  feeling,  mental  vigor,  dramatic  force.  He  de- 
lighted in  the  fierce,  the  powerful,  even  the  tragic,  putting 
them  forth  with  no  great  passion  but  with  a  blaze  of  brilliant 
color  and  swift  sure  handling.  Decoratively  he  was  something 
of  the  Paolo  Veronese  cast  of  mind.  He  conceived  things 
largely,  and  painted  them  proportionately  -  -  large  Titanic 
types,  broad  schemes  and  masses  of  color,  great  sweeping 
lines  of  beauty.  One  value  of  this  largeness  was  its  ability 
to  hold  at  a  distance  upon  wall  or  altar.  Hence,  when  seen 
to-day,  close  at  hand,  in  museums,  people  are  apt  to  think 
Rubens's  art  coarse  and  gross. 

There  is  no  prettiness  about  his  type.  It  is  not  effeminate 
or  sentimental,  but  rather  robust,  full  of  life  and  animal  spirits, 
full  of  blood,  bone,  and  muscle  —  of  majestic  dignity,  grace, 
and  power,  and  glowing  with  color.  In  imagination,  in  con- 
ception of  art  purely  as  art  and  not  as  a  mere  vehicle  to  convey 
religious  or  mythological  ideas,  in  mental  grasp  of  the  pictorial 
world,  Rubens  stands  with  Titian  and  Velasquez  in  the  very 
front  rank  of  painters.  As  a  technician,  he  was  unexcelled. 
A  master  of  composition,  modelling,  and  drawing,  a  master  of 


LATE   FLEMISH  AND   BELGIAN  PAINTING 


241 


light,  and  a  color-harmonist  of  the  rarest  ability,  he,  in  addition, 
possessed  the  most  certain,  adroit,  and  facile  hand  that  ever 
handled  a  paint-brush.  Nothing  could  be  more  sure  than  the 
touch   of   Rubens,   nothing   more   easy   and   masterful.     He 


FIG.    112.  —  RUBENS.       JACQUELINE   DE   CORDES. 
BRUSSELS  MUSEUM. 

was  trained  in  both  mind  and  eye,  a  genius  by  birth  and  by 
education,  a  painter  who  saw  keenly,  and  was  able  to  realize 
what  he  saw  with  certainty. 

Well-born,  ennobled  by  royalty,  successful  in  both  court 
and  studio,  Rubens  lived  brilliantly  and  his  life  was  a  series 
of  triumphs.  He  painted  enormous  canvases,  and  the  number 
of  pictures,  altar-pieces,  mythological  decorations,  landscapes, 


242  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

portraits  scattered  throughout  the  galleries  of  Europe,  and 
attributed  to  him,  is  simply  amazing.  He  was  helped  in  many 
of  his  canvases  by  his  pupils  and  assistants.  In  sending  out 
work  from  his  shop  he  frequently  wrote  "done  by  my  best 
pupil "  or  "touched  by  my  own  hand."  All  of  this  shop  work, 
and  many  copies  and  pictures  entirely  by  pupils  and  followers, 
are  now  put  down  arbitrarily  as  by  Rubens.  The  result  is 
very  contradictory  groups  of  pictures  called  Rubens's,  in  almost 
every  European  gallery.  Still,  in  spite  of  false  attributions, 
Rubens  remains  the  greatest  painter  of  the  North,  a  full- 
rounded,  complete  genius,  comparable  to  Titian  in  his  univer- 
sality. His  many  pupils,  though  echoing  his  methods,  never 
rose  to  his  height  in  mental  or  artistic  grasp. 

Van  Dyck  (i 599-1641)  was  his  principal  pupil.  He  fol- 
lowed Rubens  closely  at  first,  though  in  a  slighter  manner 
technically,  and  with  a  hotter  flesh  coloring.  Many  of  his 
first-style  pictures  have  been  confused  with  Rubens's  work 
and  are  now  passing  under  Rubens's  name.  After  visiting 
Italy  he  took  up  with  the  style  of  the  Venetians.  Later,  in 
England,  and  with  prosperity,  he  became  careless  and  less 
certain,  he  sent  forth  much  pupils'  work  as  his  own,  and  had 
many  of  his  works  copied  by  assistants.  His  rank  is  given  him 
not  for  his  figure-pieces.  They  were  not  always  successful, 
lacking  as  they  did  in  imagination  and  originality  and  done 
with  too  much  smoothness  and  prettiness  of  type  and  surface. 
His  best  work  was  his  portraiture,  for  which  he  became  famous. 
He  painted  nobility  in  every  country  of  Europe  in  which  he 
visited  and  was  a  portrait-painter  of  power,  but  not  to  be 
placed  in  the  same  rank  with  Titian,  Rubens,  Rembrandt, 
and  Velasquez.  His  characters  are  gracefully  posed,  digni- 
fied, aristocratic.  There  is  a  noble  distinction  about  them, 
and  yet  even  this  has  the  feeling  of  being  somewhat  affected. 
The  serene  complacency  of  his  lords  and  ladies  finally  became 
almost  a  mannerism  with  him,  though  never  a  disagreeable 


LATE   FLEMISH  AND   BELGIAN  PAINTING 


243 


one.  He  died  early,  a  painter  of  mark,  but  not  the  greatest 
portrait-painter  of  the  world,  as  is  sometimes  said  of  him. 
Many  pupils,  followers,  and  assistants  painted  in  his  style 
and  have  left  portraits  that  now  pass  current  as  Van  Dycks 
with  no  great  credit  to  the  master. 


FIG.    II3.  —  VAN   DYCK.     PORTRAIT.      BRERA,    MILAN. 

PUPILS  OF  RUBENS:  There  were  a  large  number  of 
Rubens's  pupils  who  learned  from  their  master  a  certain  brush 
facility,  but  were  not  sufficiently  original  to  make  deep  impres- 
sions. Abraham  Diepenbeeke  (1 596-1675),  Cornells  Schut 
(1597-1655),  Erasmus  Quellen  (1607-1678),  Frans  Wouters 
(161 2-1659),  were  either  assistants  or  followers  of  Rubens. 
Gerard  Seghers  or  Zegers  (1591-1651)  was  a  pupil  and  prac- 


244  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

tically  a  Rubens  imitator.  He  painted  smooth  surfaces  and 
velvety  colors,  but  his  work  is  pretty  and  porcelain-like. 
Theodore  van  Thulden  (1606-1676)  was  another  Rubens 
follower  some  of  whose  pictures  are  now  doing  service  as 
Rubenses  in  European  galleries.  Gaspar  de  Crayer  (1585— 
1669)  though  influenced  by  the  great  master  had  courage  of 
his  own  but  not  too  much  strength.  He  was  a  good  craftsman, 
a  facile  brushman,  yet  scarcely  rose  above  mediocrity.  Cor- 
nells de  Vos  (1 585-1651)  had  more  force  than  Crayer,  and 
more  independence,  but  he  was  not  a  great  original.  His 
portraits  are  his  best  endeavor.  Cossiers  (1600-167 1)  and 
Rombouts  (1597-163 7)  were  popular  painters  of  the  time 
with  no  real  genius  in  art. 

When  Rubens  died  the  best  painter  left  was  Jordaens  (1593- 
1678).  He  was  a  pupil  of  Van  Noort  and  beholden  to  Rubens, 
but  an  original  painter  of  individuality  and  force.  He  took 
his  subjects  from  actual  life,  with  large  Flemish  types  of  the 
peasant  class,  painting  them  glowing  in  health,  full-blooded, 
bursting  with  life  and  spirit.  There  is  coarseness  and  even 
brutality  about  his  art  but  also  positive  strength.  He  is  a 
draftsman,  modeller,  colorist,  of  no  mean  ability,  and  yet  with 
a  strong  decorative  sense  as  witness  the  Fecundity  in  the 
Wallace  Collection  and,  again,  in  the  Brussels  Museum. 

COLLABORATORS  WITH  RUBENS:  A  number  of  painters 
of  the  time  collaborated  with  Rubens  or  at  least  furnished 
certain  accessory  objects  to  Rubens's  figures.  Lucas  van 
Uden  (1 595-1672?)  is  supposed  to  have  painted  many  of  the 
background  landscapes  in  Rubens's  pictures,  and  it  is  almost 
certain  that  he  painted  a  number  of  landscapes  with  diminutive 
figures  now  assigned  to  Rubens.  Jan  Wildens  (1 586-1653) 
also  added  landscape,  still-life,  and  animals  to  the  Rubens 
pictures.  Jan  Brueghel  the  Elder  (1568-1625),  known  as 
Velvet  Brueghel,  is  supposed  to  have  painted  flowers  and  other 
landscape   features  for  Rubens's  figures,  but  he  was  better 


LATE   FLEMISH  AND   BELGIAN  PAINTING 


245 


known  as  an  independent  painter  of  small  landscapes  with 
gaily  colored  peasant  figures  in  picturesque  groupings.  Jan 
Brueghel  the  Younger  (1601-1678)  followed  in  his  father's 
manner  as  did  also  Savery  (1576-1639)  and  Sebastien  Vrankx 
(1573-1647).  Frans  Snyders  (1579-1657)  was  celebrated  as 
a  painter  of  animals,  and  he  too  worked  with  Rubens,  adding 
animals  and  still-life  to  his  pictures;  but  he  was  better  known 


FIG.    II4.  —  CORNELIS   DE   VOS.       THE   PAINTERS   DAUGHTERS. 
KAISER-FRIEDRICH   MUSEUM,    BERLIN. 

as  an  independent  painter  of  considerable  ability  though  harsh 
in  drawing  and  dry  in  handling.  Jan  Fyt  (1611-1661)  was  also 
a  pupil  of  Snyders,  painting  animal  life  with  skill  if  not  with 
great  spirit.  Jan  Siberechts  (1627-1703)  came  later  and 
gained  reputation  as  a  painter  of  landscape  with  certain  strik- 
ing realistic  effects  as,  for  instance,  in  water  reflections.  His 
work  is  coarse  but  has  some  strength. 

PORTRAIT    AND   GENRE    PAINTERS:     Justus    Susterman 
(1597-1681)  was  a  portrait  painter  who  had  a  vogue  with  the 


246  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

Dukes  of  Tuscany  and  painted  for  them  many  portraits  with 
a  Van  Dyck  nobility  of  air  and  a  Rubens  smoothness  of  brush. 
There  were  many  painters  of  the  time  with  a  similar  mental 
and  technical  make-up.  Gonzales  Coques  (1618-1684)  was 
in  a  different  vein  and  pictured  small  figures  in  interiors  but 
with  a  refinement  and  distinction  in  characterization  that 
remind  one  of  Van  Dyck.  He  did  some  excellent  small 
portraits. 

Living  at  the  same  time  with  these  men  was  another  group 
of  painters  who  were  emphatically  of  the  soil,  believing  in 
themselves  and  their  own  country  and  picturing  scenes  from 
commonplace  life  in  a  manner  quite  their  own.  These  were 
the  " Little  Masters,"  the  genre  painters,  of  whom  there  was 
an  even  stronger  representation  appearing  contemporaneously 
in  Holland.  In  Belgium  there  were  not  so  many  nor  such 
talented  men,  but  some  of  them  were  very  interesting  in  their 
work  as  in  their  subjects.  Teniers  the  Younger  (1610-1600) 
was  among  the  first  of  them  to  picture  in  a  genre  spirit,  peasant, 
burgher,  alewife,  and  nobleman  with  Flemish  interiors  and 
landscapes.  Nothing  escaped  him  as  a  subject,  and  yet  his 
best  work  was  shown  in  the  handling  of  low  life  in  taverns. 
There  is  coarse  wit  in  his  work,  but  it  is  atoned  for  by  good 
color  and  facile  handling.  He  was  influenced  by  Rubens, 
though  decidedly  different  from  him  in  many  respects.  Brou- 
wer  (1606-1638)  has  often  been  catalogued  with  the  Dutch 
school,  but  he  really  belongs  with  Teniers,  in  Flanders.  He 
died  early,  but  left  a  number  of  pictures  remarkable  for  their 
fat  quality  and  their  beautiful  color.  He  was  not  a  man 
of  Italian  imagination,  but  a  painter  of  low  life,  with  coarse 
humor  and  not  too  much  good  taste,  yet  a  superb  technician 
'  and  vastly  beyond  many  of  his  little  Dutch  contemporaries 
at  the  North.  The  spirit,  the  life,  the  breadth  and  beam  of 
Brouwcr  in  his  small  sketchy  work  are  astonishing.  Teniers 
and  Brouwcr  led  a  school  and  had  many  followers.     David 


LATE   FLEMISH  AND   BELGIAN  PAINTING 


247 


Ryckaert  (1612-1661),  a  pupil  of  Terriers,  was  one  of  the  best 
of  them.  At  this  time  there  were  also  many  painters  of  land- 
scape, marine,  battles,  still-life  —  in  fact  Belgium  was  alive 
with  painters  —  but  none  of  them  was  sufficiently  great  to 
call  for  individual  mention.  Most  of  them  were  followers  of 
either  Holland  or  Italy,  and  the  gist  of  their  work  will  be  spoken 
of  hereafter  under  Dutch  painting. 


FIG.    IIS.  —  STEVENS.      ON   THE   SHORE. 

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY  PAINTING:  Decline  had  set  in  be- 
fore the  seventeenth  century  ended.  Belgium  was  torn  by 
wars,  her  commerce  flagged,  her  art-spirit  seemed  burned  out. 
A  long  line  of  petty  painters  followed  whose  works  call  for 
silence.     One  man  seemed  to  stand  out  for  the  nobler  style  of 


248  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

Rubens,  Verhagen  (i  728-181 1),  a  figure  and  portrait-painter 

of  talent. 

NINETEENTH    AND    TWENTIETH -CENTURY    PAINTING: 

During  this  period  Belgium  has  been  so  closely  related 
to  France  that  the  influence  of  the  larger  country  has 
been  quite  apparent  upon  the  art  of  the  smaller.  In  18 16 
David,  the  leader  of  the  French  classic  school,  sent  into  exile 
by  the  Restoration,  settled  at  Brussels,  and  immediately  drew 
around  him  many  pupils.  His  influence  was  felt  at  once,  and 
Frangois  Navez  (1 787-1869)  was  the  chief  one  among  his  pupils 
to  establish  the  revived  classic  art  in  Belgium.  In  1830,  with 
Belgian  independence  and  almost  concurrently  with  the  roman- 
tic movement  in  France,  there  began  a  romantic  movement 
in  Belgium  with  Wappers  (1803-1874).  His  art  was  influenced 
somewhat  by  Rubens;  but,  like  the  Paris  romanticists,  he 
chose  the  dramatic  subject  of  the  times  and  treated  it  more  for 
color  than  for  line.  He  drew  a  number  of  followers  to  himself, 
but  the  movement  was  not  more  lasting  than  in  France. 

Wiertz  (1806- 1865),  whose  collection  of  works  is  to  be  seen 
in  Brussels,  was  a  partial  exposition  of  romanticism  mixed 
with  a  what-not  of  Rubens  and  some  eccentricity  entirely  his 
own.  Later  on  came  a  comparatively  new  man,  Louis  Gallait 
(1810-1887),  who  held  in  Brussels  substantially  the  same 
position  that  Delaroche  did  in  Paris.  His  art  was  eclectic 
and  never  strong,  though  he  had  many  pupils  at  Brussels,  and 
started  there  a  rivalry  to  Wappers  at  Antwerp.  Leys  (1S15- 
1869)  holds  a  rather  unique  position  in  Belgian  art  by  reason 
of  his  various  styles  in  which  he  harks  back  to  earlier  men.  He 
at  first  followed  Rembrandt,  Pieter  de  Hooch,  and  other  early 
painters.  Then,  after  a  study  of  the  old  German  painters  like 
Cranach,  he  developed  an  archaic  style,  producing  a  Gothic 
quaintness  of  line  and  composition,  mingled  with  old  Flemish 
coloring.  The  result  was  something  popular,  but  not  original 
or    far-reaching,    though    technically    well    done.     Leys   had 


LATE  FLEMISH  AND  BELGIAN  PAINTING  249 

many  pupils  and  followers,  among  them  Alma-Tad ema  (1836- 
191 2)  who  lived  most  of  his  life  in  London  and  belonged  to  no 
school  in  particular.  He  was  a  technician  of  ability,  mannered 
in  composition  and  subject,  and  somewhat  perfunctory  in 
execution.  His  work  is  very  popular  with  those  who  enjoy 
minute  detail  and  smooth  texture-painting. 

In  185 1  the  influence  of  the  French  realism  of  Courbet 
began  to  be  felt  at  Brussels,  and  since  then  Belgian  art  has 
followed  closely  the  various  art  movements  at  Paris.  Men 
like  Alfred  Stevens  (1 828-1906),  a  pupil  of  Navez,  are  really 
more  French  than  Belgian.  Stevens  was  one  of  the  best  of 
the  moderns,  a  painter  of  charm  in  fashionable  or  high-life 
genre,  and  a  colorist  of  the  first  rank  in  modern  art.  Among 
the  middle  nineteenth-century  painters  only  a  few  call  for 
mention  —  Willems  (1 823-1 905),  a  weak  painter  of  fashionable 
genre;  Verboeckhoven  (1799-1881),  a  vastly  over-estimated 
animal  painter;  Clays  (1 819-1900),  an  excellent  marine 
painter;  Boulenger,  a  landscapist;  Wauters,  a  history-  and 
portrait-painter;  Jan  van  Beers,  a  painter  of  chic  portraits 
and  Parisian  types.  The  men  of  the  present  are  so  individual 
and  so  lawless  in  their  individualities  that  it  is  impossible  to 
follow  them  or  summarize  them.  They  are  still  producing 
and  may  now  only  be  mentioned  by  name.  The  prominent 
ones  are  Emil  Claus,  a  cattle  and  landscape  painter,  Leon 
Frederic,  a  painter  of  humble  life,  Georges  Buysse,  Fernand 
Khnopff,  J.  Leempoels. 

EXTANT  WORKS:  Rubens  and  Van  Dyck  are  well  shown  in 
the  Belgian  churches  and  museums  but  are  also  to  be  seen  in  all  the 
European  galleries.  Many  of  the  pictures  put  down  to  Rubens  are 
merely  shop  works  or  what  are  called  studio  pieces.  This  is  peculiarly 
true  of  the  many  Rubenses  at  Madrid.  Van  Dyck  has  much  work 
by  pupils  and  scholars  listed  under  his  name.  The  Rubens  pupils 
and  followers  are  fairly  well  seen  in  examples  of  their  works  at  the 
Brussels  and  Antwerp  museums.  The  modern  men  are  represented 
in  the  large  modern  gallery  of  the  Antwerp  Museum. 


CHAPTER   XIX 

DUTCH  PAINTING 

Books  Recommended:  As  before  Bode,  Fromentin,  Muther, 
et  at.:  Berchenhoff,  Johannes  Bosboom;  Blanc,  CEuvre  de 
Rembrandt;  Bode,  Adriaan  van  Ostade;  Franz  Hals  und  seme 
Schule;  Studien  zur  Geschichte  der  II ollandischen  Malerei; 
Brown,  Rembrandt;  Burger  (Th.  Thore),  Les  M usees  de  la 
Ilollande;  Fontainas,  Frans  Hals;  Friedlander,  Meisterwerke 
der  nicderlandischen  Malerei;  Godoy,  Jacob  Maris,  sa  vie  et 
ses  eeuvres;  Hale,  Vermeer  of  Delft;  Havard,  The  Dutch  School 
of  Painting;  Hellena,  Gerard  Terborch;  Hofstede  de  Groot, 
Jan  Vermeer  van  Delft  en  Carel  Fabritius;  Houbraken,  Vie 
des  Peintres  Hollandais;  Immerzeel,  De  Leven  en  Werken  der 
Hollajidsche  en  Vlaamsche  Kunsl  Schilders;  Michel,  Paul 
Potter;  Rembrandt;  Gerard  Terburg  et  sa  Famille;  Moes,  Frans 
Hals;  Netscher  et  Zilcken,  Josef  Israels,  Vhomme  et  Vartiste; 
Riat,  Rysdael;  Rooses,  Dutch  Painters  of  the  Nineteenth  Cen- 
tury; Valentiner,  The  Art  of  the  Low  Countries;  Van  den 
Willigen,  Les  Artistes  de  Haarlem,  Van  Dyke,  Old  Dutch  and 
Flemish  Masters;  Van  Mander,  Le  Livre  des  Peintres;  Leven 
der  N ederlandsche  en  Hoogduitsche  Schilders;  Van  Zype,  Ver- 
meer of  Delft;  Verhaeren,  Rembrandt;  Vosmaer,  Rembrandt,  sa 
Vie  et  ses  (Euvres;  Westrheene,  Jan  Steen,  Etude  sur  V Art  en 
Ilollande. 

THE  DUTCH  PEOPLE  AND  THEIR  ART:  Though  Hol- 
land produced  a  somewhat  different  quality  of  art  from 
Flanders,  yet  in  many  respects  the  people  at  the  north  were 
not  very  different  from  those  at  the  south  of  the  Netherlands. 
They  were  perhaps  less  versatile,  less  volatile,  less  like  the 
French  and  more  like  the  Germans.  Fond  of  homely  joys 
and  the  quiet  peace  of  town  and  domestic  life,  the  Dutch  were 
matter-of-fact  in  all  things,  sturdy,  honest,  coarse  at  times, 


DUTCH  PAINTING  251 

sufficient  unto  themselves,  and  caring  little  for  what  other 
people  did.  Just  so  with  their  painters.  They  were  realistic 
at  times  to  grotesqueness.  Little  troubled  with  fine  poetic 
frenzies  they  painted  their  own  lives  in  street,  town-hall, 
tavern,  kitchen,  and  meadow,  conscious  that  it  was  good 
because  true  to  themselves. 

At  first  Holland  appears  merged  with  Flanders.  Both 
countries  belonged  to  the  Duchy  of  Burgundy,  then  passed 
to  the  Habsburgs  and  came  under  Maximilian  and  Charles  V. 
The  provinces  at  the  north  were  not  then  seriously  regarded  as 
important  either  politically  or  intellectually,  and  perhaps, 
from  isolation  a  sturdy  Dutch  character  developed  very  early. 
This  was,  more  or  less,  influenced  and  trained,  as  regards  art  in 
particular,  by  Flanders  at  the  South  and  the  Rhine  provinces 
on  the  East.  The  Van  Eycks  led  the  way  but  there  was  also 
leading  from  the  School  of  Cologne.  The  early  Dutch  painters 
accepted  both  and  yet  always  retained  something  of  their 
native  Dutch  point  of  view.  Later  on  when  the  Flemish 
painters  fell  to  copying  Italy  some  of  the  Dutch  followed 
them,  but  with  no  great  enthusiasm.  Suddenly,  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  seventeenth  century,  when  Holland  had  gained 
political  independence,  Dutch  art  struck  off  by  itself,  became 
original,  became  famous.  It  pictured  native  life  with  verve, 
skill,  keenness  of  insight,  and  fine  pictorial  view.  Limited  it 
was;  it  never  soared  like  Italian  art,  never  became  universal 
or  world-embracing.  It  was  distinct,  individual,  national, 
a  portrait  of  the  land  and  the  people,  something  that  spoke 
for  Holland,  but  of  little  beyond  it. 

In  subject  there  were  few  historical  canvases  such  as  the 
Italians  and  French  produced.  The  nearest  approach  to  them 
were  the  paintings  of  shooting  companies,  or  groups  of  burghers 
and  syndics,  and  these  were  merely  elaborations  and  enlarge- 
ments of  the  portrait  which  the  Dutch  loved  best  of  all.  As 
a  whole  their  subjects  were  single  figures  or  small  groups  in 


252 


HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 


interiors,  quiet  scenes,  family  conferences,  smokers,  card- 
players,  drinkers,  landscapes,  cattle,  still-life,  architectural 
pieces.  When  they  undertook  the  large  canvas  with  many  fig- 
ures, they  were  often  unsatisfactory.    Even  Rembrandt  was  so. 


FIG.  Il6.  —  OUVVATER.      RESURRECTION   OF   LAZARUS. 
KAISER-FRIEDRICH    MUSEUM,    BERLIN. 

The  chief  medium  was  oil,  used  upon  panel  or  canvas. 
Fresco  was  probably  used  in  the  early  days,  but  the  climate 
was  too  damp  for  it  and  it  was  abandoned.  It  was  perhaps 
the  dampness  of  the  northern  climate  that  led  to  the  adapta- 
tion of  the  oil  medium,  something  the  Van  Eycks  are  credited 
with  inaugurating,  though  they  had  merely  perfected  its  use. 


DUTCH   PAINTING  253 

THE  EARLY  PAINTING:  The  early  work  which  remains  to 
us  today  is  closely  allied  in  method  and  style  to  Flemish  paint- 
ing under  the  Van  Eycks  or  to  the  painting  then  existent  in 
the  School  of  Cologne.  There  is  even  now  some  difficulty 
in  placing  certain  pictures  in  the  School  of  Cologne  or  Bruges 
or  Haarlem,  so  interwoven  and  confused  are  the  early  in- 
fluences swaying  primitive  Netherland  art.  This  is  apparent 
in  Thierry  Bouts  of  Haarlem  who  has  been  spoken  of  under 
Flemish  painting  because  though  he  reflects  the  Rhine  painters 
in  color  and  texture,  and  is  Dutch  in  individuality,  yet  he  is 
dominantly  Flemish  in  method.  The  Van  Eycks  are  supposed 
to  have  influenced  Ouwater  (fl.  1450- 1480),  one  of  the  earliest 
and  best  of  the  Dutch  painters.  The  Resurrection  of  Lazarus 
in  the  Berlin  Gallery  ascribed  to  him  is  a  superb  work  —  the 
only  one  that  seems  certainly  his.  The  drawing  is  sharp 
after  the  manner  of  the  Van  Eycks,  the  draperies  a  little  liney, 
the  patterns  and  brocades  splendid,  the  color  clear  and  pure, 
the  architectural  background  excellent.  Moreover,  the  senti- 
ment of  the  picture  is  intense  and  its  sincerity  pronounced. 
Ouwater,  from  this  picture  alone,  takes  place  as  a  master  of  the 
first  rank  among  the  early  Dutchmen.  He  is  supposed  to  have 
been  at  Haarlem  and  had  an  influence  upon  Bouts.  He  was 
also  the  master  of  another  rare  painter  —  Geertgen  tot  Sint 
Jans  (i465?-i493?).  There  are  several  works  ascribed  to  him, 
notably  a  Deposition  and  a  companion  panel  at  Vienna. 
Dutch  originality  is  apparent  here  in  types,  costumes, 
color,  landscape.  The  color  is  notable  but  the  landscape 
is  the  most  striking  feature  in  its  trees,  light,  and  sky  effect. 
The  Resurrection  of  Lazarus  at  the  Louvre  by  Geertgen  shows 
much  strength  with  beauty  of  color.  The  method  is  Flemish 
but  the  brush  is  broader  than  that  of  the  Van  Eycks.  Here 
the  influence  of  Ouwater  seems  very  apparent.  Both  Ouwater 
and  Geertgen  are  just  now  shadowy  personalities  in  art  history 
but  there  is  no  doubt  whatever  about  the  excellence  and  im- 


254 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 


portance  of  the  work  ascribed  to  them.  It  is  comparable  to 
that  of  the  Van  Eycks  and  Van  der  Weyden.  We  have  no 
names  or  works  by  their  contemporaries  of  any  importance, 
save  the  Master  of  the  Virgo  inter  Virgines  about  whom  we 
know  little.     No  doubt  there  were  at  this  time  many  painters 

at  Haarlem,  Leyden, 
and  elsewhere,  but  their 
work  has  been  lost  or 
now  passes  under  other 
names. 

Enge  lb  re  ch  t  s  e  n 
(i468?-i533)  though 
born  at  Leyden  and 
said  to  have  been  a  stu- 
dent of  the  Van  Eycks' 
works  seems  to  have 
something  of  the  Rhine 
painters  in  his  brilliant 
color  as  well  as  in  his 
contorted  figures.  There 
is  tragic  power  and 
wonderful  depth  of  color 
in  his  pictures.  He  was 
the  master  of  Lucas  van 
Leyden  (1494-1533),  the 
friend  of  AlbrechtDiirer, 
and  a  painter  of  much 
ability.  He  had  several 
styles  of  painting  and 
his  work  has,  in  consequence,  been  confused  with  that  of 
others- -Bosch  for  example.  At  times  he  is  decidedly  Flem- 
ish and  then  again  half  Germanic,  but  always  he  is  a  skilled 
Dutchman,  painting  freely  and  yet  surely,  with  a  peculiar 
quality  of  color,  and  a  flukey  handling  of  the  brush.     Some 


FIG.  117.—  LUCAS   VAN    LEYDEN.      MADONNA. 
KA1SER-FREIDR1CU    MUSEUM,    BERLIN. 


DUTCH  PAINTING 


255 


of  his  works  (the  Madonna  and  Child  at  Berlin)  suggest  the  in- 
fluence of  Diirer.  Cornells  van  Oostsanen  (i477?-i533?)  was 
a  painter  and  engraver  working  at  Amsterdam  at  the  same 
time  that  Lucas  van  Ley  den  worked  at  Ley  den.  His  person- 
ality is  still  shadowy  in  art-history  though  the  work  attributed 
to  him  is  positive  enough.  The  Calvary  in  the  Amsterdam 
Gallery  is  one  of  his  best  works  —  full  of  sincerity,  good  color, 
and  good  workmanship.  Some  of  his  skill  with  some  of  his 
naive  awkwardness  in  figures  were  passed  on  to  his  pupil,  Jan 
Scorel.  Jan  Mostaert  (1474-1556),  supposed  by  some  to 
be  the  Master  of  Oultremont,  was  a  contemporary  of  Cornells 
but  a  less  important  painter. 

SIXTEENTH-CENTURY     PAINTING:      This     century    was 
marked  in  Dutch  art  because  of  the  spread  of  Italian  ideals 
and  methods.     As  in  Flanders  the  majority  of  painters  made 
the  Italian  tour  and  fell  in  love  with  Italian  form.     A  curious 
amalgam  was  the  result  of  their  eclecticism.     Some  painters 
came  back  to  the  Netherlands  and  produced  work  of  astonish- 
ing force  —  work  Dutch  in  spirit  but  Italian  in  form.     Scorel 
(1495-1562)  was  one  of  the  most  prominent  of  these.     After 
studying  under  Cornelis  van  Oostsanen  he  was  attracted  by  the 
work  of  Mabuse  at  Utrecht,  went  to  Italy,  travelled  through 
the  East,  acquired  much  knowledge  of  Italian  art,  and  became 
a  learned  painter.     His  drawing  and  his  color  are  both  excel- 
lent and  with  them  he  shows  a  very  strong  Dutch  individuality. 
There  is  a  forceful  angularity  in  his  line  that  is  most  attractive. 
His  work  is  much  confused  with  that  of  pupils  and  followers 
of  whom  there  were  a  number.     The  best  of  them  was  Heems- 
kerck  (1498-1574),  a  master  of  prodigious  strength  in  drawing, 
type,  and  feeling  —  things  which  he  had  evidently  imbibed 
from  Michelangelo  at  Rome  and  heightened  by  his  own  Nether- 
land  sobriety  of  mood.     Some  of  his  work  at  Haarlem,  Amster- 
dam, and  the  Hague  can  hardly  be  rated  too  highly  in  its 
fine  figures,  excellent   draperies,  splendid  color,  and  austere 


256 


HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 


spirit.  It  has  never  received  its  just  meed  of  praise.  Goltzius 
(1558-1616)  is  not  in  the  same  class  with  Heemskerck,  though 
he  received  a  similar  schooling  in  things  Italian.  He  repro- 
duced only  the  outer  form  of  Italian  art  and  was  an  unalloyed 
Mannerist  whereas  Scorel  and  Heemskerck  never  lost  their 
Xctherland    individualities.     Cornells    van    Haarlem    (1562- 


FIG.  Il8.  —  HALS.      LAUGHING   CAVALIER.      WALLACE 
COLLECTION,   LONDON. 

1638)  helped  on  the  Italian  imitation  in  the  Netherlands  but 
produced  little  art  of  importance;  and  Lastman  (1 583-1633) 
is  noticeable  only  because  he  was  Italian  trained  and  may  have 
imparted  some  of  that  training  to  his  great  pupil,  Rembrandt. 
SEVENTEENTH  CENTURY:  Beginning  with  the  first  quarter 
of  this  century  came  the  great  art  of  the  Dutch  people,  founded 


DUTCH  PAINTING  257 

on  themselves  and  rooted  in  their  native  character.  Italian 
methods  were  abandoned,  and  the  Dutch  began  telling  the 
story  of  their  own  lives  in  their  own  manner,  with  truth,  vigor, 
and  skill.  There  were  so  many  painters  in  Holland  during 
this  period  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  divide  them  into  groups 
and  mention  only  the  prominent  names. 

PORTRAIT  AND  FIGURE  PAINTERS:  The  real  inaugu- 
rators  of  Dutch  portraiture  were  Mierevelt,  Hals,  Ravesteyn, 
and  De  Keyser.  Mierevelt  (1 567-1641)  was  one  of  the  earliest, 
a  prolific  painter,  fond  of  the  aristocratic  sitter,  and  indulging 
in  a  great  deal  of  elegance  in  his  accessories  of  dress  and  the 
like.  He  had  a  slight,  smooth  brush,  much  detail,  and  a  pro- 
fusion of  color.  A  number  of  pupils  followed  in  his  style,  the 
most  notable  of  them  being  DelrT  (?-i6oi)  and  Paulus  Mor- 
eelse  (1571-1638).  Quite  the  reverse  of  Mierevelt  was  Franz 
Hals  (i584?-i666),  one  of  the  most  remarkable  painters  of 
portraits  with  whom  history  acquaints  us.  In  giving  the  sense 
of  life  and  personal  physical  presence,  he  was  unexcelled  by 
any  one.  What  he  saw  he  could  portray  with  the  most  tell- 
ing reality.  In  drawing  and  modelling  he  was  usually  good ; 
in  coloring  he  was  excellent,  though  in  his  late  work  sombre; 
in  brushhandling  he  was  one  of  the  great  masters.  Strong, 
virile,  yet  easy  and  facile,  he  seemed  to  produce  without  effort. 
His  brush  was  very  broad  in  its  sweep,  very  sure,  very  true. 
Occasionally  in  his  late  painting  facility  ran  to  the  ineffectual, 
but  usually  he  was  certainty  itself.  His  best  work  was  in  por- 
traiture, and  the  most  important  of  this  is  to  be  seen  at  Haarlem, 
where  he  died  after  a  rather  careless  life.  As  a  painter,  pure 
and  simple,  he  is  almost  to  be  ranked  beside  Velasquez;  as  a 
poet,  a  thinker,  a  man  of  lofty  imagination,  his  work  gives 
us  little  enlightenment  except  in  so  far  as  it  shows  a  fine  feeling 
for  masses  of  color  and  problems  of  light.  Much  work  is  now 
ascribed  to  Hals  that  was  done  by  his  brother  Dirck  Hals 
(1591-1656)  or  by  his  sons  of  whom  he  had  five,  all  of  them 


25S 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 


painters.  Many  of  the  smiling  boy  pictures  assigned  to  Hals 
were  done  by  his  sons  or  by  Judith  Leyster  (i6oo?-i66o), 
another  pupil  and  imitator.  Though  excellent  portrait- 
painters,  Ravesteyn  (1573?— 1657)  and  De  Keyser  (i595?-i667) 
do  not  provoke  enthusiasm.  They  were  quiet,  conservative, 
dignified,  painting  civic  guards  and  societies  with  a  clever 

brush  and  sometimes 
lively  color,  giving  the 
truth  of  physiognomy, 
but  not  with  that  verve 
of  the  artist  so  conspic- 
uous in  Hals,  nor  with 
that  unity  of  the  group 
so  essential  in  the  mak- 
ing of  a  picture.  They 
were,  however,  sterling 
portrait  painters  and  men 
of  pronounced  ability. 

The  next  man  in  chron- 
ological order  is  Rem- 
brandt (1606-1669),  the 
greatest  painter  in  Dutch 
art.  He  was  a  pupil  of 
Swanenburch  and  Last- 
man,  but  his  great  knowl- 


FIG.  Iig.  —  REMBRANDT.      PORTRAIT. 
PETROGRAD. 


HERMITAGE, 


edge  of  nature  and  his 
craft  came  largely  from 
the  direct  study  of  the  model.  Settled  at  Amsterdam,  he 
quickly  rose  to  fame,  had  a  large  following  of  pupils,  and 
his  influence  wras  felt  through  all  Dutch  painting.  The 
portrait  was  emphatically  his  strongest  work.  The  many- 
figured  group  he  was  not  always  successful  in  composing 
or  lighting.  His  method  of  work  rather  fitted  him  for  the 
portrait    and    unfitted    him   for    the   large   historical  piece. 


DUTCH  PAINTING  259 

He  built  up  the  importance  of  certain  features  by  drag- 
ging down  all  other  features.  This  was  largely  shown  in  his 
handling  of  illumination.  Strong  in  a  few  high  lights  on 
cheek,  chin,  or  white  linen,  the  rest  of  the  picture  was  sub- 
merged in  shadow,  under  which  color  was  unmercifully  sacri- 
ficed. This  was  not  the  best  method  for  a  large,  many-figured 
piece,  but  was  singularly  well  suited  to  the  portrait.  It  pro- 
duced strength  by  contrast.  "Forced"  it  was  undoubtedly, 
and  not  always  true  to  nature,  yet  nevertheless  most  potent 
in  Rembrandt's  hands.  He  was  an  arbitrary  though  absolute 
master  of  light-and-shade,  and  was  unusually  effective  in 
luminous  and  transparent  shadows.  In  color  he  was  again 
arbitrary  but  forceful  and  harmonious.  In  brush-work  he 
was  at  times  labored,  but  almost  always  effective. 

Mentally  he  was  a  man  keen  to  observe,  assimilate,  and 
express  his  impressions  in  a  few  simple  truths.  His  con- 
ception was  localized  with  his  own  people  and  time  (he  never 
built  up  the  imaginary  or  followed  Italy),  and  yet  into  types 
taken  from  the  streets  and  shops  of  Amsterdam  he  infused  the 
very  largest  humanity  through  his  inherent  sympathy  with 
man.  Dramatic,  even  tragic,  he  wras;  yet  this  was  not  so 
apparent  in  vehement  action  as  in  passionate  expression.  He 
had  a  powerful  way  of  striking  universal  truths  through  the 
human  face,  the  turned  head,  bent  body,  or  outstretched 
hand.  His  people  have  character,  dignity,  and  a  pervad- 
ing feeling  that  they  are  the  serious  types  of  the  Dutch 
race  —  people  of  substantial  physique,  slow  in  thought 
and  impulse,  yet  capable  of  feeling,  comprehending,  enjoy- 
ing, suffering. 

His  landscapes,  again,  were  a  synthesis  of  all  landscapes, 
a  grouping  of  the  great  truths  of  light,  air,  shadow,  space. 
Whatever  he  turned  his  hand  to  was  treated  with  that  breadth 
of  view  that  overlooked  the  little  and  grasped  the  great.  He 
painted  many  subjects.    His  earliest  work  dates  from  1627, 


26o  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

and  is  a  little  hard  and  sharp  in  detail  and  cold  in  coloring. 
After  1654  he  grew  broader  in  handling  and  warmer  in  tone, 
running  to  golden  browns,  and,  toward  the  end  of  his  career, 
to  rather  hot  tones.  His  life  was  embittered  by  many  mis- 
fortunes, but  these  never  seem  to  have  affected  his  art  except 
to  deepen  it.  He  painted  on  to  the  last,  convinced  that  his 
own  view  was  the  true  one,  and  producing  works  that  rank 
second  to  none  in  the  history  of  painting. 

Rembrandt's  influence  upon  Dutch  art  was  far-reaching, 
and  appeared  immediately  in  the  works  of  his  many  pupils. 
They  all  followed  his  methods  of  handling  light-and-shade, 
but  no  one  of  them  ever  equalled  him,  though  they  produced 
work  of  much  merit.  Unfortunately  the  cupidity  of  dealers 
and  the  folly  of  collectors  has  succeeded  in  placing  most  of  the 
pupils'  works  under  the  name  of  the  master.  In  the  European 
galleries  there  are  a  hundred  pictures  under  the  name  of  Rem- 
brandt to  every  ten  under  the  names  of  his  twenty  pupils  and 
imitators.  Bol  (1611-16S0)  was  chiefly  a  portrait-painter, 
with  a  pervading  yellow  tone  and  some  pallor  of  flesh-coloring 
—  a  man  of  ability  who  became  smooth  and  mannered  in  his 
late  work.  Flinck  (161 5-1660)  at  one  time  followed  Rem- 
brandt so  closely  that  his  work  has  passed  and  still  passes, 
for  that  of  the  master.  Almost  all  of  his  early  work  is  put 
down  to  Rembrandt.  Next  to  Eeckhout  he  was  probably 
the  nearest  to  Rembrandt  in  methods  of  all  the  pupils.  Eeck- 
hout (1621-1674)  was  really  a  Rembrandt  imitator  and  yet 
he  had  a  way  of  handling  the  brush  peculiarly  his  own.  He 
was  a  painter  of  much  force  at  times  and  did  pictures  not  un- 
worthy of  Rembrandt.  Backer  (i6o8?-i65i),  too,  in  his  early 
manner  followed  Rembrandt  so  closely  that  he  is  often  con- 
fused with  the  master.  He  was  a  powerful  painter  of  portraits 
after  the  Rembrandt  method.  Maes  (1632-1603)  was  a 
successful  manager  of  light  after  the  school  formula,  and  suc- 
ceeded very  well  with  warmth  and  richness  of  color,  especially 


DUTCH  PAINTING 


261 


with  his  reds.  Here  again  is  a  pupil  almost  all  of  whose  early 
work  is  now  under  the  name  of  Rembrandt.  His  late  glassy 
style  is,  of  course,  under  his  own  name,  it  being  impossible  to 
pass  it  off  as  by  Rembrandt.  Bernard  Fabritius  (fl.  1650- 
1672)  and  Carel  Fabritius  (i62o?-i654)  were  also  Rembrandt 


FIG.    I20.  —  REMBRANDT.      SASKIA.      CASSEL   GALLERY. 


pupils  whose  work  is  now  confounded  with  that  of  Rembrandt, 
and  others  of  the  school.  In  addition  there  were  followers  and 
imitators  like  Lievens  (1607-1674),  Poorter  (11.  1635-1643), 
Victors  (1620-1676),  Koninck  (1609-1656),  Gelder  (1645- 
1727),  Heerschop  (1620-1672),  Hoogstraaten  (i627~i67S),who 
produced  works  somewhat  in  Rembrandt's  style.  Van  der 
Heist  (i6i2?-i67o)  stands  apart  from  this  school,  and  seems 


262  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

to  have  followed  more  the  portrait  style  of  De  Keyser.  He 
was  a  realistic,  precise  painter,  with  much  excellence  of  model- 
ling in  head  and  hands,  and  with  carriage  and  dignity  in  the 
figure.  In  composition  he  hardly  held  his  characters  in  group 
owing  to  a  sacrifice  of  values,  and  in  color  and  surface  he  was 
often  weak. 

THE  GENRE  PAINTERS:  This  heading  embraces  those  who 
may  be  called  the  " Little  Dutchmen,"  because  of  the  small 
scale  of  their  pictures  and  their  genre  subjects.  Gerard  Dou 
(1613-1675)  is  indicative  of  the  class  without  fully  represent- 
ing it.  He  was  a  pupil  of  Rembrandt,  but  his  work  gave  little 
report  of  this.  It  was  smaller,  more  delicate  in  detail,  more 
petty  in  conception.  He  was  a  man  great  in  little  things, 
one  who  wasted  strength  on  the  minutiae  of  dress,  or  table-cloth, 
or  the  texture  of  furniture  without  grasping  the  mass  or  color 
significance  of  the  whole  scene.  There  was  infinite  detail 
about  his  work,  and  that  gave  it  popularity;  but  as  art  it  held, 
and  holds  today,  little  higher  place  than  the  work  of  Van 
Mieris  (1635-1681),  Netscher  (1639-1684),  or  Schalcken 
(1643-1706),  all  of  whom  produced  the  interior  piece  with 
figures  elaborate  in  accidental  effects.  Adriaen  van  Ostade 
(1610-1685),  though  dealing  with  the  small  canvas,  and  por- 
traying peasant  life  with  perhaps  unnecessary  coarseness, 
was  a  much  stronger  painter  than  the  men  just  mentioned. 
With  little  delicacy  in  choice  of  subject  he  had  much  delicacy 
in  color,  taste  in  arrangement,  and  skill  in  handling.  His 
drawing  and  modelling  were  excellent  and  his  brush  wrork  was 
free  and  very  accurate.  His  brother  Isaac  van  Ostade  (1621- 
1649)  painted  figures  with  landscape  but  was  a  less  forceful 
personality  than  Adriaen. 

By  far  the  best  painter  among  all  the  " Little  Dutchmen" 
was  Terborch  (1617-1681),  a  painter  of  interiors,  small  por- 
traits, conversation  pictures,  and  the  like.  Though  of  dimin- 
utive scale  his  work  has  the  largeness  of  view  characteristic 


DUTCH  PAINTING 


263 


of  genius,  and  the  skilled  technique  of  a  thorough  craftsman. 
Terborch  was  a  travelled  man,  visiting  Italy,  where  he  studied 
Titian,  returning  to  Holland  to  study  Rembrandt,  finally  at 
Madrid  studying  Velasquez.  He  was  a  painter  of  much  cult- 
ure, and  the  key-note  of  his  art  is  refinement.     Quiet  and  dig- 


FIG.    121.  — TERBORCH.      THE   CONCERT.      KAISER-FRIEDRICH 
MUSEUM,    BERLIN. 

nified  he  carried  taste  through  all  branches  of  his  art.  In 
subject  he  was  rather  elevated,  in  color  subdued  with  broken 
tones,  in  composition  simple,  in  brush-work  sure,  and  yet 
unobtrusive.  Selection  in  his  characters  was  followed  by 
reserve  in  using  them.  Detail  was  not  very  apparent.  A 
few  people  with  some  accessory  objects  were  all  that  he  re- 
quired to  make  a  picture.     Perhaps  his  best  qualities  appear 


264  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

in  a  number  of  small  portraits  remarkable  for  their  distinction 
and  aristocratic  grace. 

After  Terborch  should  be  mentioned  Metsu  (1630-1667), 
a  more  complex  and  less  profound  painter  than  Terborch,  but 
nevertheless  a  skilled  technician  who  occasionally  did  work 
that  will  almost  rank  with  Terborch's  best  achievements. 
Another  painter  of  marked  ability  about  whose  career  little 
is  known  was  Michiel  Sweerts  (rl.  1650).  One  picture  by  him 
in  the  Munich  Gallery  is  fine  enough  to  make  him  famous,  so 
beautifully  is  it  painted.    It  suggests  Terborch's  influence. 

Steen  (i626?-i67o)  was  almost  the  opposite  of  Terborch, 
a  man  of  sarcastic  flings  and  coarse  humor  who  satirized  his 
own  time  with  little  reserve.  He  probably  developed  under 
the  influence  of  Hals  and  Van  Ostade,  favoring  the  latter  in 
his  interiors,  family  scenes,  and  drunken  debauches.  He  was 
a  master  of  physiognomy,  and  depicted  it  with  rare  if  rather 
unpleasant  truth.  If  he  had  little  refinement  in  his  themes  he 
certainly  handled  them  as  a  painter  with  delicacy.  At  his 
best  his  many  figured  groups  were  exceedingly  well  composed, 
his  color  was  of  good  quality  (with  a  fondness  for  yellows), 
and  his  brush  was  as  limpid  and  graceful  as  though  painting 
angels  instead  of  Dutch  boors.  He  was  really  one  of  the 
fine  brushmen  of  Holland,  a  man  greatly  admired  by  Sir 
Joshua  Reynolds  and  many  an  artist  since;  but  not  a  man 
of  high  intellectual  pitch  as  compared  with  Terborch,  for 
instance. 

Pieter  de  Hooch  (1630-1677?)  was  a  painter  of  purely  pic- 
torial effects,  beginning  and  ending  a  picture  in  a  scheme 
of  color,  atmosphere,  clever  composition,  and  above  all  the 
play  of  light-and-shade.  He  was  one  of  the  early  masters  of 
full  sunlight,  painting  it  falling  across  a  court-yard  or  stream- 
ing through  a  window  with  marvellous  truth  and  poetry. 
His  subjects  were  commonplace  enough.  An  interior  with  a 
figure  or  two  in  the  middle  distance,  and  a  passage-way  lead- 


DUTCH   PAINTING 


265 


ing  into  a  lighted  background  were  sufficient  for  him.  These 
formed  a  skeleton  which  he  clothed  in  a  half-tone  shadow, 
pierced  with  warm  yellow  light,  enriched  with  rare  colors, 
usually  garnet  reds  and  deep  yellows  repeated  in  the  different 
planes,  and  surrounded  with  a  subtle  pervading  atmosphere. 
As  a  brushman  he  was  easy  but  not  distinguished,  and  often 


1                                    W   '  i  nfla! 

„  ^.^ 

3                                                                                        <B   is,  *^™JkT        ^h.-.^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
'ijff r  L"^^aBBMK^^v     ^B?UB>          tBBBBk^*^  vH% 

FIG.  122.  —  PIETER   DE    HOOCH.       INTERIOR. 

AMSTERDAM. 


RIJKS    MUSEUM, 


his  drawing  was  not  correct;  but  in  the  placing  of  color  masses 
and  in  composing  by  color  and  light  he  was  a  master  of  the 
first  rank.  Little  is  known  about  his  life.  He  probably 
formed  himself  on  Fabritius  or  Rembrandt  at  second  hand, 
but  little  trace  of  the  latter  is  apparent  in  his  work.  He  seems 
not  to  have  achieved  much  fame  until  late  years,  and  then 
rather  in  England  than  in  his  own  country. 


266  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

Jan  Vermeer  of  Delft  (1632-1675),  one  of  the  most  charming 
of  all  the  genre  painters,  was  allied  to  De  Hooch  in  his  pictorial 
point  of  view  and  interior  subjects.  Unfortunately  there  is 
little  left  to  us  of  this  master,  but  the  few  extant  examples 
serve  to  show  him  a  painter  of  extraordinary  pictorial  qualities. 
He  was  a  remarkable  man  for  his  handling  of  blues,  reds,  and 
yellows;  and  in  the  tonal  relations  of  a  picture  he  was  a  master 
second  to  no  one.  Fabritius  is  supposed  to  have  influenced 
him,  but  his  work  is  quite  unlike  that  of  any  master  who  pre- 
ceded him.  His  simplicity  of  theme,  his  fine  light  and  atmos- 
phere, his  beautiful  color  place  him  apart  as  a  rare  man  in  Dutch 
art.  The  View  of  Delft  at  the  Hague  is  a  wonder  not  only 
for  the  painter's  time  but  for  any  time.  In  figures  with 
studio  light  and  in  plein  air  landscape  he  set  a  striking 
example  in  Dutch  art. 

THE  LANDSCAPE  PAINTERS:  The  painters  of  the  Nether- 
lands were  probably  the  first  in  the  North  to  paint  landscape 
for  its  own  sake,  and  as  a  picture  motive  in  itself.  Before 
them  it  had  been  used  as  a  background  for  the  figure,  and  was 
so  used  by  many  of  the  Dutchmen  themselves,  but  the  Ruis- 
daels  and  Hobbemas  subordinated  or  eliminated  figures  and 
threw  all  their  strength  into  trees,  skies,  lights,  and  atmospheres. 
It  has  been  said  that  these  landscape-painters  were  also  the 
first  ones  to  paint  landscape  realistically,  but  that  is  true 
only  in  part.  They  studied  natural  forms,  as  did,  indeed, 
Bellini  or  Salvator  Rosa  or  Claude  Lorrain;  they  learned 
something  of  perspective,  air,  tree  anatomy,  and  the  appear- 
ance of  water;  but  no  Dutch  painter  of  landscape  in  the  seven- 
teenth century  grasped  the  full  color  of  Holland  or  painted 
its  many  varied  lights.  They  indulged  in  a  meagre  conven- 
tional palette  of  grays,  greens,  and  browns,  not  true  of  Holland 
or  any  other  land;  and  in  light,  with  the  exception  of  Cuyp, 
they  seemed  to  shun  the  sun.  It  was  a  limited  and  a  rather 
conventional  point  of  view  that  they  held  and  the  pictures 


DUTCH  PAINTING 


267 


they  painted  were  more  decorative  and  pictorial  than  truthful 
to  the  existing  facts  of  Holland. 

Van  Goyen  (1 596-1 656)  was  one  of  the  earliest  of  the  seven- 
teenth-century landscapists.  In  subject  he  was  fond  of  the 
Dutch  bays,  harbors,  rivers,  and  canals  with  shipping,  wind- 
mills, and  houses.     His  sky  line  was  generally  given  low,  his 


FIG.    123.  —  VERMEER   OF   DELFT.      PORTRAIT.      HAGUE    MUSEUM. 


water  silvery,  and  his  sky  misty  and  luminous  with  pale  light. 
In  color  he  was  subdued,  and  in  perspective  quite  cunning 
at  times.  Salomon  van  Ruisdael  (i6oo?-i6yo)  was  his  fol- 
lower, if  not  his  pupil.  He  had  the  same  sobriety  of  color  as 
his  master,  and  was  a  mannered  and  prosaic  painter  in  details, 
such  as  leaves  and  tree-branches.  In  composition  he  was 
fairly  good,  but  his  art  had  only  a  slight  basis  upon  reality, 


268  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

though  it  looks  to  be  realistic  at  first  sight.  He  had  a  formula 
for  doing  landscape  which  he  varied  only  in  a  slight  way,  and 
this  conventionality  ran  through  all  his  work.  Molyn  (1595- 
1661)  was  a  painter  who  showed  limited  truth  to  nature  in 
flat  and  hilly  landscapes,  transparent  skies,  and  warm  coloring. 
His  extant  works  are  few  in  number.  Wynants  (161 5?-  1679?) 
was  more  of  a  realist  in  natural  appearance  than  either  Molyn 
or  Ruisdael,  a  man  who  evidently  studied  directly  from  nature 
in  details  of  vegetation,  plants,  trees,  roads,  grasses,  and  the 
like.  Most  of  the  figures  and  animals  in  his  landscapes  were 
painted  by  other  hands.  He  himself  was  a  pure  landscape- 
painter,  excelling  in  light  and  aerial  perspective,  but  not 
remarkable  in  color.  Van  der  Neer  (1603-1677)  painted 
river  scenes  and  landscapes  with  water  wherein  he  liked 
to  cast  reflections  of  clouds,  moonlight,  and  firelight,  and 
Everdingen  (1621-1675)  painted  mountain  landscapes  sup- 
posed to  represent  Sweden  or  Norway,  but  done  after  the 
Dutch  formula. 

The  best  landscapist  following  the  first  men  of  the  century 
was  Jacob  van  Ruisdael  (1628?- 1.682),  the  nephew  of  Salomon 
van  Ruisdael.  He  is  put  down,  with  perhaps  unnecessary 
emphasis,  as  the  greatest  landscape-painter  of  the  Dutch 
school.  He  was  undoubtedly  the  equal  of  any  of  his  time, 
though  not  so  near  to  nature,  perhaps,  as  Hobbema.  He  was 
a  man  of  imagination,  who  at  first  pictured  the  Dutch  country 
about  Haarlem,  and  afterward  took  up  with  the  romantic 
landscape  of  Everdingen.  This  landscape  bears  a  dark  resem- 
blance to  the  Norwegian  country,  abounding,  as  it  does,  in 
mountains,  heavy  dark  woods,  and  rushing  torrents.  There 
is  considerable  poetry  in  its  composition,  its  gloomy  skies, 
and  darkened  lights.  It  is  mournful,  suggestive,  wild,  usually 
unpeopled.  There  was  much  of  the  methodical  in  its  putting 
together,  and  in  color  it  was  cold,  and  limited  to  a  few  tones. 
Many  of  Ruisdael's  works  have  darkened  through  time.     Little 


DUTCH   PAINTING  269 

is  known  about  the  painter's  life  except  that  he  was  not  appre- 
ciated in  his  own  time  and  died  in  the  almshouse. 

Hobbema  (1 638-1 709)  was  probably  the  pupil  of  Jacob  van 
Ruisdael,  and  ranks  with  him,  if  not  above  him,  in  seventeenth- 
century  landscape  painting.  Ruisdael  hardly  ever  painted 
sunlight,  whereas  Hobbema  rather  affected  it  in  quiet  wood- 
scenes  or  roadways  with  little  pools  of  water  and  a  mill.  He 
was  a  freer  man  with  the  brush  than  Ruisdael,  and  knew  more 
about  the  natural  appearance  of  trees,  skies,  and  lights;  but, 
like  his  master,  his  view  of  nature  was  gray,  sombre,  limited, 
and  not  true  to  the  fact,  though  decorative  and  productive 
of  agreeable  art.  His  work  found  small  favor  in  his  own  land. 
Most  of  his  pictures  are  in  England,  where  they  had  not  a 
little  to  do  with  influencing  such  painters  as  Constable  and 
others  at  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

LANDSCAPE  WITH  CATTLE:  Here  we  meet  with  Wouwer- 
man  (1619-1668),  a  painter  of  horses,  cavalry,  battles,  riding 
parties  placed  in  landscape.  His  landscape  is  bright  and  his 
horses  are  spirited  in  action.  There  is  some  mannerism  ap- 
parent in  his  reiterated  concentration  of  light  on  a  white  horse, 
and  some  repetition  in  his  canvases,  of  which  there  are  many; 
but  on  the  whole  he  was  an  interesting,  if  smooth  and  neat 
painter.  Paul  Potter  (1625-1654)  hardly  merited  his  great 
reputation.  He  was  a  harsh,  exact  recorder  of  facts,  often 
tin-like  or  wooden  in  his  cattle,  and  not  in  any  way  remarkable 
in  his  landscapes,  least  of  all  in  their  composition.  The  Young 
Bull  at  the  Hague  is  an  ambitious  piece  of  drawing,  but  is  not 
successful  in  color,  light,  or  ensemble.  It  is  a  brittle  work  all 
through,  and  not  nearly  so  good  as  some  smaller  things  in  the 
National  Gallery,  London,  and  in  the  Louvre.  He  is  in  no 
respect  equal  to  Camphuysen  (i623?-i672),  whose  cattle  in 
landscape  have  a  largeness  and  breadth,  a  truth  of  light  and 
shadow,  a  charm  of  silvery  color  that  can  hardly  be  praised 
too  highly.     He  is  the  most  original  and  perhaps  the  best  of 


270 


HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 


the  Dutch  cattle  painters.  Adrien  van  de  Velde  (1636?- 
1672)  was  short-lived,  like  Potter,  but  managed  to  do  a  pro- 
digious amount  of  work,  showing  cattle  and  figures  in  land- 
scape with  much  technical  ability.  He  was  particularly  clever 
in  composition  and  the  subtle  gradation  of  neutral  tints.  A 
little  of  the  Italian  influence  appeared  in  his  work,  and  with  the 
men  who  came  with  him  and  after  him  the  Italian  imitation 
became  very  pronounced.     Aelbert  Cuyp  (1620-1691)  was  a 


w-- 

^^^ 

M 

P^P' 

&■ 

B 

rljF' 

V 

yt^p*  > 

■.*<ijS 

| 

*      ^^x&C*  * 

'    *v 

:¥ 

"f*     ^H^^^^^H 

*&&£ 

■ IB      '"'         "\ 

r 

Y 

2f£ 

'   *>    " 

.-* 

•  *k  ' 

FIG.    124.  —  JACOB   VAN  RUISDAEL.     LANDSCAPE. 


many-sided  painter,  adopting  at  various  times  different  styles, 
but  was  enough  of  a  genius  to  be  himself  always.  He  is  best 
known  to  us,  perhaps,  by  his  yellow  sunlight  effects  along 
rivers,  with  cattle  in  the  foreground,  though  he  painted  still- 
life,  and  even  portraits  and  marines.  In  composing  a  group 
he  was  skilful,  recording  natural  effects  with  power;  in  light 
and  atmosphere  he  was  one  of  the  best  of  his  time,  and  in 
texture  and  color  refined,  and  frequently  brilliant.  Both 
(1610-1652),  Berchem  (1620-1683),  Du  Jardin  (1622-1678), 


DUTCH  PAINTING 


271 


followed  the  Italian  tradition  of  Claude  Lorrain,  producing 
semi-classic  landscapes,  never  very  convincing  in  their  ori<*- 
inality.  Van  der  Heyden  (163 7-1 7 12)  should  be  mentioned 
as  an  excellent,  if  minute,  painter  of  architecture  with  remark- 
able skies  and  atmospheric  effects. 

MARINE  AND   STILL-LIFE    PAINTERS:    There    were    two 
preeminent    marine    painters    in    this    seventeenth    century, 
Willem  van  de  Velde  the  Younger  (1 633-1 707)  and  Backhuisen 
(1631-1708).     The  sea  was  not  an  unusual  subject  with  the 
Dutch  landscapists.     Simon  de  Vlieger  (1601-1653),  Willem 
van  de  Velde  the  Elder  (i6ii?-i693),  Van  de  Cappelle  (1624?- 
1679),  all  employed  it;  but  it  was  Van  de  Velde  the  Younger 
who  really  stood  at  the  head  of  the  marine  painters.     He  knew 
his  subject  thoroughly,  having  been  well  grounded  in  it  by  his 
father  and  De  Vlieger,  so  that  the  painting  of  the  Dutch  fleets 
and  harbors  was  a  part  of  his  nature.     He  preferred  the  quiet 
haven  to  the  open  sea.     Smooth  water,  calm  skies,  silvery 
light,  and  boats  lying  listlessly  at  anchor  with  drooping  sails, 
made  up  his  usual  subject.     The  color  was  almost  always  in 
a  key  of  silver  and  gray,  very  charming  in  its  harmony  and 
serenity,  but  a  little  thin.     Both  he  and  his  father  went  to 
England  and  entered  the  service  of  the  English  king,  and 
thereafter  did  English  fleets  rather  than  Dutch  ones.     Back- 
huisen was  quite  the  reverse  of  Van  de  Velde  in  preferring  the 
tempest  to  the  calm  of  the  sea.     He  also  used  more  brilliant 
and  varied  colors,  but  he  was  not  so  happy  in  tone  as  Van  de 
Velde.     There  was  often  dryness  in  his  handling,  and  some- 
thing too  much  of  the  theatrical  in  his  wrecks  on  rocky  shores. 
Van  de  Cappelle  was  uneven  in  his  work.     Occasionally  he 
reached  a  high  pitch  of  excellence. 

The  still-life  painters  of  Holland  were  all  of  them  rather 
petty  in  their  emphasis  of  details  such  as  figures  on  table- 
covers,  water-drops  on  flowers,  and  fur  on  rabbits.  It  was 
labored  work  with  little  of  the  art  spirit  about  it,  except  as 


272  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

it  suggested  skill  of  handling  or  good  grouping  of  color  masses. 
A  number  of  these  painters  gained  celebrity  in  their  day  by 
their  microscopic  labor  over  fruits,  flowers,  and  the  like,  but 
they  have  no  great  rank  at  the  present  time.  Jan  de  Heem 
( 1 606-1 684?)  was  perhaps  the  best  painter  of  flowers  among 
them.  Van  Huysum  (1682-1749)  succeeded  with  the  same 
subject  beyond  his  deserts.  Hondecoeter  (1 636-1 695)  wras  a 
unique  painter  of  birds  and  poultry;  Weenix  (1640-17 19)  and 
Van  Aelst  (i626?-i683?),  of  dead  game;  Kalf  (i63o?-i693), 
of  pots,  pans,  dishes,  and  vegetables. 

EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY:  This  was  a  period  of  decadence 
during  which  there  was  no  originality  worth  speaking  about 
among  the  Dutch  painters.  Realism  in  minute  features  was 
carried  to  the  extreme,  and  imitation  of  the  early  men  took 
the  place  of  invention.  Everything  was  prettified  and  elab- 
orated until  there  wras  a  porcelain  smoothness  and  a  photo- 
graphic exactness  inconsistent  with  forceful  art.  Adriaen 
van  der  Werfif  (1659-1722)  and  Philip  van  Dyck  (1680-1753) 
with  their  "ideal"  inanities  are  typical  of  the  century's  art. 
There  was  nothing  to  commend  it.  The  lowest  point  of 
affectation  had  been  reached. 

NINETEENTH  CENTURY:  The  Dutch  painters,  unlike  the 
Belgians,  have  almost  always  been  true  to  their  own  tradi- 
tions and  their  own  country.  Even  in  decadence  the  most  of 
them  feebly  followed  their  own  painters  rather  than  those  of 
Italy  and  France,  and  in  the  early  nineteenth  century  they  were 
not  affected  by  the  French  classicism  of  David.  Later  on 
there  came  into  vogue  an  art  that  had  affinity  with  that  of 
Millet  and  Courbet  in  France.  It  was  the  Dutch  version  of 
modern  sentiment  about  the  laboring  classes,  founded  on  the 
modern  life  of  Holland,  yet  in  reality  a  continuation  of  the  style 
of  genre  practised  by  the  early  Dutchmen.  Israels  (1824- 
191 1 )  was  a  revival  or  a  survival  of  Rembrandtesque  methods 
with  a  sentiment  and  feeling  akin  to  the  French  Millet.     He 


DUTCH  PAINTING 


273 


dealt  almost  exclusively  with  humble  life,  showing  fisher- 
folk  and  the  like  in  their  cottage  interiors,  at  the  table,  or 
before  the  fire,  with  good  effects  of  light,  atmosphere,  and  much 
pathos.  Technically  he  was  rather  labored  and  heavy  in  han- 
dling, but  usually  effective  with  sombre  color  in  giving  the 
unity  of  a  scene.  Artz  (183  7-1890)  considered  himself  in  a  meas- 
ure a  follower  of  Israels,  though  he  never  studied  under  him. 
His  pictures  in  subject  are  like  those  of  Israels,  but  without  the 


FIG.    125.  —  ISRAELS.      ALONE  IN   THE   WORLD. 

depth  of  the  latter.  Blommers  (1845-1914)  was  another  peas- 
ant painter  who  followed  Israels  at  a  distance,  and  Neuhuys 
(1844-)  shows  a  similar  style  of  work.  Bosboom  (1817-1891) 
excelled  in  representing  interiors,  showing,  with  much  pictorial 
effect,  the  light,  color,  shadow,  and  feeling  of  space  and  air 
in  churches  and  cathedrals. 

The  brothers  Maris  have  made  a  distinct  impression  on 
modern  Dutch  art,  and,  oddly  enough,  each  in  a  different 
way  from  the  others.  Jacob  Maris  (1837-1899)  studied  at 
Paris,  and  is  remarkable  for  fine,  vigorous  views  of  canals, 


274  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

towns,  and  landscapes.  He  is  broad  in  handling,  rather  bleak 
in  coloring,  and  excels  in  fine  luminous  skies  and  voyaging 
clouds.  Matthew  Maris  (1839-),  Parisian  trained  like  his 
brother,  lives  in  London,  where  little  is  seen  of  his  work.  He 
paints  for  himself  and  his  friends,  and  is  rather  melancholy 
and  mystical  in  his  art.  He  is  a  recorder  of  visions  and  dreams 
rather  than  the  substantial  things  of  the  earth,  but  always  with 
richness  of  color  and  a  line  decorative  feeling.  Willem  Maris 
(1839-1910),  sometimes  called  the  "Silvery  Maris,"  was  a 
portrayer  of  cattle  and  landscape  in  warm  sunlight  and  haze 
with  a  charm  of  color  and  tone  often  suggestive  of  Corot. 
Jongkind  (1819-1891)  stood  by  himself,  Mesdag  (1831-)  is 
a  fine  painter  of  marines  and  sea-shores,  and  Mauve  (1838- 
1888)  was  a  cattle  and  sheep  painter,  with  nice  sentiment  and 
tonality,  wThose  renown  is  just  now  somewhat  disproportionate 
to  his  artistic  ability.  There  are  a  number  of  living  painters 
in  Holland  connected  with  present-day  movements  whose 
names  merely  can  be  given  at  the  present  time.  They  are 
Kever,  Poggenbeek,  Bastert,  Baur,  Breitner,  Witsen,  Haver- 
man,  Weissenbruch. 

EXTANT  WORKS:  Generally  speaking  the  best  examples  of 
the  Dutch  schools  are  to  be  seen  in  the  local  museums  of  Holland, 
especially  the  Amsterdam  and  Hague  museums.  Hals  is  seen  to 
advantage  at  Haarlem.  Examples  of  Rembrandt  are  in  many- 
European  galleries  but  with  them  are  mixed  many  pictures  be- 
longing to  his  school  and  pupils.  The  Little  Dutchmen  are  also 
seen  in  almost  every  gallery.  Dutch  art  in  all  its  phases  is  perhaps 
more  widely  diffused  than  any  other.  Some  of  the  modern  men  are 
well  shown  in  American  collections. 


CHAPTER   XX 

GERMAN  PAINTING 

Books  Recommended:  Colvin,  A.  Diirer,  his  Teachers,  his 
Rivals,  and  his  Scholars;  Conway,  Literary  Remains  of  Al- 
brecht  Diirer;  Cust,  Diirer;  Davies,  Holbein;  Ephrussi,  Diirer 
et  ses  dessins;  Eye,  Leben  und  Wirken  Albrecht  Diirer s;  Fischer, 
Die  altdeutsche  Malerei  in  Salzburg;  Forster,  Geschichte  der 
dutschen  Kunst;]  Peter  von  Cornelius;  Gauthiez,  Holbein; 
Girodie,  Martin  Schongauer;  Haack,  Hans  Schiicklin;  Heaton, 
Albrecht  Diirer;  Janitschek,  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Malerei; 
Keane,  Early  Teutonic,  Italian,  and  French  Painters;  Kiigler, 
Handbook  to  German  and  Netherland  Schools,  trans,  by  Crowe; 
Merlo,  Die  Meister  der  altkolnischer  Malerschule;  Moore, 
Albert  Diirer;  Pecht,  Deutsche  Kiinstler  des  Neunzehnten 
J ahrhunderts ;  Reau,  Les  Primitijs  Allemands;  Reber,  Ges- 
chichte der  neueren  deutschen  Kunst;  Riegel,  Deutsche  Kunst- 
studien;  Rosenberg,  Die  Berliner  Malerschule;  Sebald  und 
Barthel  Beham;  Rumohr,  Hans  Holbein  der  Jiingere;  San- 
drart,  Teutsche  Akademie  der  Edlen  Bait-,  Bild-  und  Malerey- 
Kiinste,  Schiebler  und  Aldenhoven,  Geschichte  der  kolner 
Malerschule;  Schmarsow,  Die  oberrheinische  Malerei;  Schuc- 
hardt,  Lucas  CranacKs  Leben;  Springer,  Albrecht  Diirer; 
Stadler,  Hans  Multscher;  Thausig,  Albert  Diirer,  His  Life 
and  Works;  Thode,  Die  Malerschule  von  Niirnberg;  Waagen, 
Kunstwerke  und  Kunstler  in  Deutschland;  E.  aus'm  Weerth, 
Wand-malereien  des  Mittelalters  in  den  Rheinlaiulen;  Wessely, 
Adolph  Menzel;  Wolff,  Michael  Pacher;  WolrHin,  Die  Kunst 
A.  Diirers;  Woltmann,  Geschichte  der  Deutschen  Kunst  im 
Elsass;  Holbein  and  his  Time;  Wurtzbach,  Martin  Schongauer. 

EARLY  GERMAN  PAINTING:  The  Teutonic  lands,  like  al- 
most all  of  the  northern  countries  of  Europe,  probably  re- 
ceived their  first  art  impulse  from  Italy.  The  centre  of  the 
faith  was  at  Rome,  and  from  there  the  influence  in  art  spread 


276  HISTORY   OF    PAINTING 

west  and  north,  and  in  each  land  it  was  modified  by  local 
peculiarities  of  type  and  temperament.  In  Germany,  even 
in  the  early  days,  though  Christianity  was  the  theme  of  early 
illuminations,  miniatures,  and  the  like,  and  though  there 
was  a  traditional  form  reaching  back  to  Italy,  yet  under  it 
was  the  Teutonic  type  —  the  material,  awkward,  rather  coarse 
Germanic  point  of  view.  The  wish  to  realize  native  surround- 
ings was  apparent  from  the  beginning. 

It  is  probably  that  the  earliest  painting  in  Germany  took 
the  form  of  illuminations.  At  what  date  it  first  appeared  is 
unknown.  In  wall-painting  a  poor  quality  of  work  was  exe- 
cuted in  the  churches  as  early  as  the  ninth  century,  and  prob- 
ably earlier.  The  oldest  now  extant  are  those  at  Oberzell  on 
the  Lake  of  Constance,  dating  back  to  the  last  part  of  the  tenth 
century.  Better  examples  are  seen  in  the  monastery  of 
BrauwTeiler,  near  Cologne,  and  in  St.  Michael  at  Hildesheim, 
of  the  twelfth  century,  and  still  better  in  the  choir  of  the  Bruns- 
wick cathedral,  ascribed  to  the  early  thirteenth  century. 

All  of  these  works  have  an  archaic  appearance  but  they 
are  more  mature  in  composition  and  drawing  than  the  pro- 
ductions of  Italy  at  that  time.  They,  naturally,  lacked  in 
perspective  and  modelling  and  were  placed  upon  the  wall  in 
flat  pattern.  It  is  likely  that  many  of  the  German  churches 
at  this  time  were  decorated,  but  most  of  the  paintings  have 
been  destroyed.  The  usual  method  wras  to  cover  the  walls  and 
wooden  ceilings  with  blue  grounds,  and  upon  these  to  place 
figures  surrounded  by  architectural  ornaments.  Stained 
glass  wras  also  used  extensively  and  eventually  did  away  with 
wall-painting.  Panel  painting  seems  to  have  come  into  exist- 
ence before  the  thirteenth  century  (whether  developed  from 
miniature  or  wall-painting  is  unknown),  and  was  used  for  altar 
decorations.  The  panels  were  done  in  tempera  with  figures 
in  light  colors  upon  gold  grounds.  The  spirituality  of  the  age 
with  a  mingling  of  northern  sentiment  appeared  in  the  figure. 


GERMAN   PAINTING  277 

This  figure  was  at  times  graceful,  and  again  awkward  and 
archaic,  according  to  the  place  of  production.  The  oldest 
panels  extant  are  from  the  Wiesenkirche  at  Soest,  Westphalia, 
now  in  the  Berlin  Museum.  They  do  not  date  before  the 
thirteenth  century. 


FIG.  126.  —  DURER.      CHRIST   ON   CROSS.      DRESDEN    GALLERY. 

FOURTEENTH  AND  FIFTEENTH  CENTURIES:  In  the  four- 
teenth century  northern  sentiment  began  to  show  in  wil- 
lowy figures,  long  flowing  draperies,  and  sentimental  poses. 
The  artists  along  the  Rhine  showed  this  more  than  those  in  the 
provinces  to  the  east,  where  a  ruder  if  freer  art  appeared. 
There  was,  to  be  sure,  an  early  movement  at  Hamburg  where 
we  have  the  names  of  Meister  Bertram  and  Meister  Francke, 


278  HISTORY  OF    PAINTING 

and  a  continuation  of  art  traditions  in  Westphalia  with  Conrad 
de  Soest  and  the  Master  of  Liesborn.  But  the  best  panel 
painting  was  done  at  Cologne,  where  we  meet  with  the  name  of 
Meister  Wilhelm,  a  master  much  praised  by  the  chroniclers, 
and  where  a  school  was  established  usually  known  as  the 

SCHOOL  OF  COLOGNE:  This  school  perhaps  got  its  sen- 
timental inclination,  shown  in  slight  forms  and  tender  expres- 
sion, from  France,  but  probably  derived  some  of  its  tech- 
nique from  Flemish  miniature  painting.  Stephen  Lochner,  or 
Meister  Stephen  (rl.  1450),  leaned  toward  the  Flemish  methods, 
but  there  is  also  an  individuality  about  his  work  showing 
the  growth  of  German  independence  in  painting.  The  figures 
of  his  Dombild  have  little  manliness  or  power,  but  considerable 
grace,  pathos,  and  religious  feeling.  They  are  not  abstract 
types  but  the  spiritualized  people  of  the  country  in  native 
costumes,  with  much  gold,  jewelry,  and  armor.  Gold  was 
used  instead  of  a  landscape  background,  and  the  foreground 
was  spattered  with  flowers  and  grasses  in  many  of  the  panels 
of  the  time.  The  outlines  were  rather  hard,  and  none  of  the 
aerial  perspective  of  the  Flemings  was  given.  After  a  time 
the  native  sentiment  was  still  further  encroached  upon  by 
realism  in  the  figures  and  much  splendor  of  ornamentation  in 
robes  and  patterns.  The  names  of  the  painters  are  uncertain 
and  they  are  identified  only  by  their  works.  The  chief  ones 
are  the  Master  of  the  Life  of  the  Virgin,  the  Master  of  the 
Kinsfolk  of  the  Virgin,  the  Master  of  the  St.  Bartholomew 
Altar,  the  Master  of  the  Heisterbach  Altar,  the  Master  of  St. 
Severin.  The  influence  of  Bouts  is  apparent  in  some  of 
them,  notably,  the  Master  of  the  Life  of  the  Virgin,  and  in 
others  there  are  resemblances  to  the  Van  Eycks  or  Van  der 
Weyden;  but  with  this  there  is  always  native  originality, 
much  skill,  and  a  fine  color  sense.  The  Cologne  school  had  a 
final  representative  in  Barthel  Bruyn  (1493-1557),  an  effective 
portrait  painter. 


GERMAN  PAINTING 


279 


BOHEMIAN  SCHOOL:  It  was  not  in  the  north  alone  that 
German  painting  was  practised.  The  Bohemian  school, 
located  near  Prague,  flourished  for  a  short  time  in  the  four- 
teenth century,  under  Charles  IV,  with  Theodorich  of  Prague, 


FIG.  127.  —  HOLBEIN.      BURGOMASTER   MEYER   MADONNA. 
DARMSTADT. 

Wurmser,  and  Kunz,  as  the  chief  masters.  Their  art  was 
quite  the  reverse  of  the  Cologne  painters.  It  was  heavy, 
clumsy,  bony,  awkward.  If  more  original  it  was  less  graceful, 
not  so  pathetic,  not  so  religious.  Sentiment  was  slurred 
through  a  harsh  attempt  at  realism,  and  the  religious  subject 


2S0  HISTORY   OF    PAINTING 

met  with  something  of  a  check  in  the  romantic  mediaeval 
chivalric  theme,  painted  quite  as  often  on  the  castle  wall  as 
the  scriptural  theme  on  the  church  wall. 

NUREMBERG  SCHOOL:  Half-way  between  the  sentiment 
of  Cologne  and  the  realism  of  Prague  stood  the  early 
school  of  Nuremberg,  with  no  known  painter  at  its  head. 
Its  chief  works,  the  Imhof  altar-piece  and  the  Tucher  re- 
table,  show,  however,  that  the  Nuremberg  masters  of  the 
early  and  middle  fifteenth  century  were  swayed  by  eastern 
and  western  influences  and  yet  held  fast  to  a  short  stout 
figure  with  much  sturdy  strength  and  not  a  little  decorative 
splendor. 

SWABIAN  SCHOOL:  At  Ulm  there  flourished  an  early 
painter,  Multscher  (fl.  c.  1437),  and  at  Weil,  Lucas  Moser 
(fl.  c.  143 1),  both  of  them  producing  a  remarkable  art  in  its 
force  of  type  and  its  realistic  detail  of  natural  scenes;  but 
neither  of  them  was  so  notable  as  Witz  (1400?-?),  a  Swiss 
working  at  Constance,  and  Pacher  (fl.  1460),  a  Tyrolese  master 
of  rare  decorative  ability  and  pronounced  power.  Witz  had 
a  wonderful  sense  of  color  and  Pacher  was  a  draftsman  of 
singular  strength  for  his  early  time.  The  examples  of  Pacher 
at  the  Munich  gallery  will  -repay  long  study.  Reichlich 
(i46o?-i52o)  was  his  follower. 

FIFTEENTH  AND  SIXTEENTH  CENTURIES:  German  art, 
if  begun  in  the  fourteenth  century,  hardly  showed  depth 
or  breadth  until  the  fifteenth  century,  and  no  real  individ- 
ual strength  until  the  sixteenth  century.  It  lagged  behind 
the  other  countries  of  Europe  and  produced  the  archaic  altar- 
piece  crowded  in  composition,  cramped  in  space,  if  rich  in  gold 
work  and  excellent  in  realistic  detail.  Then  when  printing 
was  invented  the  painter-engraver  came  into  existence.  He 
was  a  man  who  painted  panels,  but  found  his  largest  audience 
through  the  circulation  of  engravings.  The  two  kinds  of  art 
being  produced  by  the  one  man  led  to  much  detailed  line  work 


GERMAN   PAINTING 


281 


with  the  brush.     Engraving  is  an  influence  to  be  borne  in  mind 
in  examining  the  painting  of  this  period. 

FRANCONIAN  SCHOOL:  Nuremberg  was  the  centre  of 
this  school  and  no  doubt  the  early  traditions  of  art  at  Nurem- 
berg were  carried  out  by  the  new  men.     Its  most  famous  early 


H^^H^BBHHN  BB9H^BB39^flMHMHMHmi^^^^H 

i»^*-- 

,TATIS-SV/L-2  8  • 

^B  .^L^^   ^ 

FIG.  12* 


HOLBEIN.   PORTRAIT.   IMPERIAL  GALLERY,  VIENNA. 


master  was  Wolgemut  (1434-15 19),  though  Plydenwurff  is 
the  first  named  painter.  After  the  latter's  death  Wolgemut 
married  his  widow  and  became  the  head  of  the  school.  His 
paintings  were  chiefly  altar-pieces,  in  which  the  figures  were 
rather  lank  and  narrow-shouldered,  with  sharp  outlines, 
indicative  perhaps  of  the  influence  of  wood-engraving,  in  which 


282  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

he  was  much  interested,  and  also  of  some  following  of  Bouts. 
There  was,  however,  in  his  work  an  advance  in  characteriza- 
tion, expression,  and  dignity,  and  it  was  his  good  fortune  to 
be  the  master  of  one  of  the  most  thoroughly  original  painters 
of  all  the  German  schools  —  Albrecht  Diirer  (1472-1528). 

With  Diirer  and  Holbein  German  art  reached  its  apogee 
in  the  first  half  of  the  sixteenth  century,  yet  their  work  was 
not  different  in  spirit  from  that  of  their  predecessors.  Paint- 
ing simply  developed  and  became  forceful  and  expressive 
technically  without  abandoning  its  early  character.  There 
is  in  Diirer  a  naive  awkwardness  of  figure,  some  angularity 
of  line,  strain  of  pose,  and  in  composition  oftentimes  huddling 
and  overloading  of  the  scene  with  details.  There  is  not  that 
largeness  which  seemed  native  to  his  Italian  contemporaries. 
He  was  hampered  by  a  German  exactness,  which  found  its 
best  expression  in  engraving,  and  which,  though  unsuited  to 
painting,  nevertheless  crept  into  it.  Within  these  limitations 
Diirer  produced  the  typical  art  of  Germany  in  the  Early 
Renaissance  time  —  an  art  more  attractive  for  the  charm  and 
beauty  of  its  parts  than  for  its  unity,  or  its  general  impression. 
Diirer  was  a  travelled  man,  visited  Italy  and  the  Netherlands, 
and,  though  he  always  remained  a  German  in  art,  yet  he 
picked  up  some  Italian  methods  from  Bellini  and  Mantegna 
that  are  faintly  apparent  in  some  of  his  works.  In  subject 
he  was  almost  exclusively  religious,  painting  the  altar-piece 
with  infinite  care  upon  wooden  panel,  canvas,  or  parchment. 
In  drawing  he  was  sometimes  harsh  and  faulty,  in  draperies 
occasionally  cramped,  and  then,  again,  as  in  the  Apostle  panels 
at  Munich,  very  broad  and  effective.  Many  of  his  pictures 
show  a  hard,  dry  brush,  and  a  few,  again,  are  so  free  and  mellow 
that  they  look  as  though  done  by  another  hand.  He  was 
usually  minute  in  detail,  especially  in  such  features  as  hair, 
cloth,  flesh.  His  portraits  were  uneven.  He  was  too  close 
a  scrutinizer  of  the  part  and  not  enough  of  an  observer  of  the 


GERMAN  PAINTING 


283 


whole  for  good  portraiture.  Indeed,  that  is  the  criticism  to 
be  made  upon  all  his  work.  He  was  an  exquisite  realist  of 
certain  features,  but  not  always  of  the  ensemble.  Nevertheless 
he  holds  high  rank  in  the  German  art  of  the  Renaissance,  not 


FIG.    129.  —  CRANACH.      REST   IN   FLIGHT  INTO   EGYPT. 
KAISER-FRIED  RICH   MUSEUM,   BERLIN. 


only  on  account  of  his  technical  ability,  but  also  because  of 
his  imagination,  sincerity,  and  striking  originality. 

Durer's  influence  was  wide-spread  throughout  Germany, 
especially  in  engraving,  of  which  he  was  a  great  master.  In 
painting  Schauffelein  (i48o?-i54o?)  was  probably  his  appren- 
tice, and  in  his  work  followed  the  master  so  closely  that  many 


284  HISTORY  OF   TAINTING 

of  his  works  have  been  attributed  to  Durer.  His  portraits 
arc  extremely  well  done.  Hans  Baldung  (14707-1545)  also 
developed  under  the  influence  of  Durer  and  was  remarkable 
for  his  beautiful  outline  drawing.  He  was  a  draftsman  of 
power  and  there  is  grace  even  in  his  odd  types.  Moreover 
he  was  a  painter  of  imaginative  force  and  had  tragic  qualities 
that  remind  one  of  Griinewald  (11.  c.  1 503-1 530).  This  last 
named  painter  stood  quite  apart  from  the  larger  schools, 
worked  at  Mainz  and  elsewhere,  and  produced  a  powerful  if 
somewhat  brutal  art  that  at  least  commands  respect.  He  was 
not  lacking  in  a  sense  of  the  decorative  and  was  an  original 
genius  all  through.  Hans  von  Kulmbach  (1476?-! 5 2 2)  was 
also  a  painter  of  more  than  ordinary  ability,  brilliant  in  color- 
ing, a  follower  of  Dtirer,  who  was  inclined  toward  Italian 
methods,  an  inclination  that  aftenvard  developed  all  through 
German  art.  Following  Durer's  formulas  came  a  large  number 
of  so-called  "Little  Masters"  (from  the  size  of  their  engraved 
plates),  who  were  more  engravers  than  painters.  Among  the 
more  important  of  those  w7ho  were  painters  as  well  as  engravers 
wTere  Altdorfer  (i48o?-i538),  a  striking  painter  of  landscape 
in  connection  with  small  figures;  Barthel  Beham  (1 502-1 540), 
Sebald  Beham  (1500-1550),  Pencz  (i5oo?-i55o),  Aldegrever 
(1502-1558),  and  Bink  (i4QO?-i56o?). 

SWABIAN  SCHOOL:  This  school  in  the  fifteenth  century 
included  a  number  of  painters  who  wrere  located  at  different 
places,  like  Colmar  and  Ulm,  and  later  on  it  included  the 
Holbeins  at  Augsburg,  who  wrere  really  the  consummation  of 
the  school.  One  of  the  early  leaders  was  Martin  Schongauer 
(1450- 1491),  at  Colmar.  He  is  supposed  to  have  been  a  pupil 
of  Roger  van  der  Weyden  of  the  Flemish  school,  and  is  better 
known  by  his  engravings  than  his  paintings.  He  was  thor- 
oughly German  in  his  type  and  treatment,  though,  perhaps, 
indebted  to  the  Flemings  for  his  coloring.  There  was  some 
angularity  in  his  figures  and  draperies,  and  a  tendency  to  get 


GERMAN  PAINTING  285 

nearer  nature  and  further  away  from  the  ecclesiastical  and 
ascetic  conception  in  all  that  he  did.  The  Master  of  the  Haus- 
buchs  (fl.  c.  145 7-1 505),  a  versatile  and  somewhat  worldly 
genius  who  painted  clever  genre  and  figure  pictures,  was 
perhaps  influenced  by  Schongauer. 


FIG.    130.  — LENBACH.      PORTRAIT.      METROPOLITAN   MUSEUM 

NEW   YORK. 

At  Ulm  a  local  school  came  into  existence  with  Zeitblom 
(fl.  1450-15 1 7),  who  was  probably  a  pupil  of  Schuchlin  (fl.  c. 
1469)  and  had  something  in  common  with  Schongauer.  He 
was  a  simple,  straightforward  painter  of  one  rather  strong  type. 
His  drawing  was  not  good,  except  in  the  draperies,  and  neither 
his  skill  nor  his  fancy  was  remarkable.     Schaffner  (1480-1541) 


2S6  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

was  another  Ulm  painter,  a  junior  to  Zeitblom,  who  was  prob- 
ably influenced  by  Burgkmair  and  Diirer.  His  composition, 
his  sense  of  decorative  pattern,  his  emotional  force  were  all 
very  unusual.  Bernard  Strigel  (1461?-! 5 28?)  seems  to  have 
formed  himself  under  the  influence  of  Zeitblom  and  painted 
some  excellent  portraits  (in  the  Vienna  Gallery)  that  are  not 
only  delicate  but  forceful  in  line  and  beautiful  in  color. 

At  Augsburg  there  was  still  another  school,  which  came  into 
prominence  in  the  sixteenth  century  with  Burgkmair  and  the 
Holbeins.  It  was  only  a  part  of  the  Swabian  school,  a  concen- 
tration of  artistic  force  about  Augsburg,  which,  towrard  the 
close  of  the  fifteenth  century,  had  come  into  competition  with 
Nuremberg,  and  rather  outranked  the  latter  in  splendor. 
It  wras  at  Augsburg  that  the  Renaissance  art  in  Germany 
showed  in  more  restful  composition,  less  angularity,  better 
modelling  and  painting,  and  more  sense  of  the  ensemble  of  a 
picture.  Ulrich  Apt  (1486?-! 53 2),  a  painter  of  fine  feeling  with 
a  technique  perhaps  founded  on  Flemish  painting,  worked  here 
at  Augsburg  producing  decorative  altar-pieces;  but  Hans 
Burgkmair  (1473-1531)  was  the  founder  of  the  school.  He 
was  a  pupil  of  Schongauer,  later  influenced  by  Diirer,  and  finally 
showed  the  influence  of  Italian  art.  As  a  painter  he  was  a 
rather  strong  if  crude  colorist  and  an  angular  but  very  forceful 
draftsman.  He  was  a  painter  possessed  of  much  tragic  power, 
and  dramatic  composition  as  shown  in  his  altar-pieces,  espe- 
cially that  in  the  Munich  Gallery.  His  portraits  suggest  a 
following  of  Diirer  though  looser  in  the  drawing  and  freer  in 
the  painting  than  Diirer's  work. 

Next  to  Burgkmair  comes  the  celebrated  Holbein  family. 
There  were  four  of  them  all  told,  but  only  twro  of  them,  Hans 
the  Elder  and  Hans  the  Younger,  need  be  mentioned.  Hol- 
bein the  Elder  (i473?-i524),  after  Burgkmair,  was  the  best 
painter  of  his  time  and  school  without  being  in  himself  a  great 
artist.     Schongauer  was  at  first  his  guide,  though  he  soon 


GERMAN  PAINTING  287 

submitted  to  some  Flemish  and  Cologne  influences,  and  later 
on  followed  Italian  form  and  method  to  some  extent.  He  was 
a  fair  draftsman,  and  clever  at  catching  realistic  points  of 
physiognomy  —  a  gift  he  left  his  son  Hans.  In  addition  he 
had  some  feeling  for  architecture  and  ornament.  The  best 
half  of  his  life  fell  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fifteenth  .century, 
and  he  never  achieved  the  free  painter's  quality  of  his  son. 

Hans  Holbein  the  Younger  (1407-1543)  holds,  with  Diirer, 
the  high  placeln  German  art.  He  was  a  more  mature  painter 
than  Dtirer,  coming  as  he  did  a  quarter  of  a  century  later.  He 
was  the  Renaissance  artist  of  Germany,  whereas  Diirer  always 
had  a  little  of  the  Gothic  clinging  to  him.  The  two  men  were 
widely  different  in  their  points  of  view  and  in  their  work. 
Diirer  was  a  seeker  after  a  type,  a  religious  painter,  a  painter 
of  panels  and  portraits  with  the  spirit  of  an  engraver.  Holbein 
was  emphatically  a  realist  finding  material  in  the  actual  life 
about  him,  a  designer  of  cartoons  and  large  wall  paintings  in 
something  of  the  Italian  spirit,  a  man  who  painted  religious 
themes  but  with  little  spiritual  significance,  a  painter  of  superb 
portraits  above  all. 

It  is  probable  that  Holbein  got  his  first  instruction  from  his 
father  and  from  Burgkmair.  He  was  an  infant  prodigy,  de- 
veloped early,  saw  much  foreign  art,  and  showed  a  number  of 
tendencies  in  his  work.  In  composition  and  drawing  he 
appeared  at  times  to  be  following  Mantegna  and  the  northern 
Italians;  in  brush-work  he  resembled  the  Flemings,  especially 
Metsys;  yet  he  was  never  an  imitator  of  either  Italian  or 
Flemish  painting.  Decidedly  a  self-sufficient  and  an  observing 
man,  he  travelled  in  Italy  and  the  Netherlands,  and  spent 
much  of  his  life  in  England,  where  he  met  with  great  success 
at  court  as  a  portrait-painter.  From  seeing  much  he  assimi- 
lated much,  yet  always  remained  German,  changing  his  style 
but  little  as  he  grew  older.  His  wall  paintings  have  perished, 
but  the  drawings  from  them  are  preserved  and  show  him  as 


jSS 


HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 


an  artist  of  much  invention.  He  is  now  known  chiefly  by  his 
portraits,  of  which  there  are  many  of  great  excellence.  His 
facility  in  grasping  physiognomy  and  realizing  character,  the 
quiet  dignity  of  his  composition,  his  firm  modelling,  clear 
outline,  harmonious  coloring,  excellent  detail,  and  easy  solid 
painting,  all  place  him  in  the  front  rank  of  great  painters.  No 
master  ever  employed  linear  drawing  with  more  truth,  force 


FIG.  131.  —  FRITZ   VON    UHDE.      CHRIST   IN    THE   GARDEN. 


and  significance  in  every  touch  than  Holbein.  His  Darmstadt 
Madonna,  his  portrait  of  the  Duchess  of  Milan  in  the  National 
Gallery,  or  of  More  in  the  Louvre  shows  his  art  to  great 
advantage. 

SAXON  SCHOOL:  Lucas  Cranach  (1472-1553)  was  a  Fran- 
conian  master,  who  settled  in  Saxony  and  was  successively 
court-painter  to  three  Electors  and  the  leader  of  a  small  local 
school  there.     He  was  probably  a  pupil  of  his  father  and  may 


GERMAN  PAINTING  289 

have  been  swayed  by  Dlirer  in  drawing,  but  was  so  positive  a 
character  that  he  showed  no  strong  influences.  His  work  was 
odd  in  conception  and  execution,  sometimes  ludicrous,  and 
always  archaic-looking.  His  type  was  rather  strained  in 
proportions,  not  always  accurately  drawn,  but  graceful  even 
when  not  truthful,  and  very  rhythmical  in  line.  This  type 
was  carried  into  all  his  works,  and  finally  became  a  mannerism 
with  him.  In  subject  he  was  mythological,  romantic,  pastoral, 
with  a  preference  for  the  nude  figure  wherein  he  best  expressed 
his  sense  of  refined  outline.  In  coloring  he  was  remarkable 
in  his  blues,  reds,  and  greens.  Some  of  his  works  have  a  quality 
like  old  porcelain  in  their  depth  of  hue.  The  lack  of  aerial 
perspective,  of  shadow  masses,  of  positive  modelling  sometimes 
gives  his  single  figures  a  flat  look,  but  they  are  always  rather 
wonderful  in  their  outline.  Lucas  Cranach  the  Younger 
(15 1 5- 1 586)  was  the  best  of  the  elder  Cranach's  pupils.  Many 
of  his  pictures  are  attributed  to  his  father.  He  followed  the 
elder  closely,  but  was  a  weaker  man,  with  a  less  forceful  pencil 
and  a  more  rosy  color.  Though  there  were  a  number  of  pupils 
the  school  did  not  go  beyond  the  Cranach  family.  It  began 
with  the  father  and  practically  died  with  the  son. 

SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURIES:  These 
were  centuries  of  decline  in  German  painting.  After  Dlirer, 
Holbein,  and  Cranach  had  passed  there  came  about  a  dull 
imitation  of  Italy,  combined  with  an  equally  dull  imitation 
of  detail  in  nature  that  produced  nothing  worthy  of  the  name 
of  original  or  genuine  art.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  Reforma- 
tion had  any  more  to  do  with  this  than  with  the  decline  in 
Italy.  It  was  a  period  of  barrenness  in  both  countries.  The 
Italian  imitators  who  went  to  Italy  and  worked  there  for  a  long 
time  were  chiefly  Rottenhammer  (1564-1623)  and  Elzheimer 
(1578-1620).  Their  work  is  not  inspiring  because  lacking 
in  originality.  After  them  came  the  representation  of  the 
other   extreme  in  painting  with  Denner   (1685-1749),   who 


290 


HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 


thought  to  be  great  in  portraiture  by  the  minute  imitation  of 
hair,  freckles,  and  three-days'-old  beard  —  a  petty  and  un- 
worthy realism  which  excited  some  curiosity  but  never  held 
rank  as  art.  Still  later  came  Mengs  (1728-1779)  who  greatly 
admired  and  followed  Raphael  and  Correggio,  and  thought  to 


FIG.    132.  —  THOMA.      LANDSCAPE. 


attain  sublimity  by  combining  the  excellences  of  these  great 
Italians.  His  work,  though  academic  and  correct,  is  lacking 
in  spirit  and  and  in  force.  Angelica  Kauffman  (1 741-1807)  was 
not  unlike  Mengs  and  succeeded  in  pleasing  her  inartistic 
age  with  the  simply  pretty,  while  Carstens  (1754-1798)  was 
a  conscientious  if  mistaken  student  of  the  great  Italians  —  a 


GERMAN  PAINTING  291 

man  of  some  severity  in  form  and  of  academic  inclinations 
but  with  little  sense  of  color  and  less  decorative  feeling. 

NINETEENTH   CENTURY:    In    the   first   part  of    the  nine- 
teenth century  there  started  in  Germany  a  " revival  of  art" 
led   by  the  so-called    "Nazarenes,"    Overbeck   (1 789-1869), 
Cornelius  (1783-1S67),  Veit  (1793-1877),  and  Schadow  (1789- 
1862);  but  like  many  another  revival  of  art  it  did  not  amount 
to  much.     The  attempt  to  revive  the  past  is  usually  a  failure. 
The  forms  are  caught,  but  the  spirit  is  lost.     The  nineteenth- 
century  attempt  in  Germany  was  brought  about  after  18 10 
by  the  study  of  fifteenth-century  painting  in  Italy,  and  the 
taking  up  of  the  primitive  painters  in  a  pre-Raphaelite  manner. 
It  was  a  reaction  against  classicism  and  eclecticism  in  which 
the  German  romanticism  of  the  time  played  an  important  part. 
Overbeck  remained  in  Rome,  but  the  others,  after  some  time 
in  Italy,  returned  to  Germany,  diffused  their  teaching,  and 
really  formed  a  new  epoch  in  German  painting.     A  modern 
art  began  with  ambitions  and  subjects  entirely  disproportionate 
to  its  skill.     The  monumental,  the  ideal,  the  classic,  the  ex- 
alted, were  spread  over  enormous  spaces,  but  there  was  no 
reason  for  such  work  in  the  contemporary  German  life,  and 
nothing  to  warrant  its  appearance  save  that  its  better  had 
appeared  in  Italy  during  the  Renaissance.     Cornelius  after 
his  return  became  the  head  of  the 

MUNICH  SCHOOL  and  painted  pictures  of  the  heroes  of 
the  classic  and  the  Christian  world  upon  a  large  scale.  Nothing 
but  their  size  and  good  intention  ever  brought  them  into  notice, 
for  their  form  and  coloring  were  both  commonplace  and  neg- 
ligible. Schnorr  (1 794-1872)  followed  in  the  same  style  with 
the  Niebelungen  Lied,  Charlemagne,  and  Barbarossa  for 
subjects.  Kaulbach  (1S05-1874)  was  a  pupil  of  Cornelius, 
and  had  some  ability  but  little  taste,  and  not  enough  origi- 
nality to  produce  great  art.  He  is  not  to  be  taken  seriously. 
Piloty  (1826-18S6)  was  more  realistic,  more  of  a  painter  and 


292 


HISTORY  OF   PAIXTING 


ranks  as  one  of  the  best  of  the  early  Munich  masters.  He 
was  a  pupil  of  Schnorr  and  put  a  garb  of  color  over  the  meagre 
skeleton  of  form  set  forth  by  his  master.  He  was  also  a  famous 
teacher  and  had  for  pupils,  Makart  (1S40-1884),  an  Austrian 
who  had  good  technical  qualities  and  a  profusion  of  color, 
Max  (1S40-),  a  somewhat  over-rated  painter  of  sentimental 


FIG.    133.  —  LIEBERMANN.      ON   THE   BEACH. 


themes,  Defregger  (1835-)  and  Griitzner  (1846-),  painters  of 
peasant  genre,  Lenbach  (1 836-1 904),  a  forceful  portrait-painter 
in  a  Rembrandtesque  vein.  After  Piloty  the  tendency  of 
Munich  art  was  toward  genre  subjects  with  realistic  detail, 
and  to-day  it  reflects  all  the  modern  movements  set  by  the 
impressionists,  symbolists,  or  tonalists  of  Paris  or  London. 

DUSSELDORF   SCHOOL:   After  1826  this  school  came  into 
prominence  under  the  guidance  of  Schadow.     It  did  not  fancy 


GERMAN  PAINTING  293 

monumental  painting  so  much  as  the  common  easel  picture 
with  the  sentimental,  the  dramatic,  or  the  romantic  subject. 
It  was  no  better  in  form  or  color  than  the  Munich  school,  in 
fact  not  so  good,  though  there  were  many  painters  who  ema- 
nated from  it  who  had  ability. 

The  tendency  of  painting  in  Germany  and  Austria  during 
the  last  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  was  not  favorable  to 
the  best  kind  of  pictorial  art.  There  was  a  disposition  on  the 
part  of  artists  to  tell  stories,  to  encroach  upon  the  sentiment 
of  literature,  to  paint  with  a  dry  brush  in  harsh  unsympathetic 
colors,  to  ignore  relations  of  light-and-shade,  and  to  slur  beau- 
ties of  pattern.  The  subject  seemed  to  count  for  more  than  the 
truth  of  representation,  or  the  individuality  of  view.  From 
time  to  time  artists  of  much  ability  appeared,  but  these  formed 
an  exception  rather  than  a  rule. 

German  art  in  the  twentieth  century  is  a  different  affair. 
The  arbitrary  teachings  of  the  schools  have  passed  away,  and 
tradition  is  thrown  to  the  winds.  An  individualism  is  apparent 
almost  everywhere  and  each  artist  tries  to  express  himself  in 
a  style  peculiar  to  himself.  The  result  is  great  variety,  new 
views  and  new  themes,  and  much  good  painting.  Yet  the 
individual  point  of  view  was  positively  shown  as  early  as 
Menzel  (1815-1905),  a  painter  of  national  themes  with  good 
color  and  drawing  and  great  skill.  It  continues  with  Leibl 
(1844-1900),  a  painter  with  a  Holbein  touch  and  realism,  Uhde 
(1848-),  a  portrayer  of  scriptural  scenes  with  modern  German 
types,  good  color,  and  light,  Thoma  (1839-),  a  Frankfort 
painter  of  decorative  panels  in  an  old  German  style,  Triibner 
(1851-),  a  pupil  of  Leibl,  Liebermann  (1849-),  one  of  the  first 
to  take  up  diffused  light  and  air,  Gotthard  Kuehl  (1850-), 
who  reminds  one  of  Manet,  Franz  Stuck  (1863-),  with  some 
weirdness  of  imagination,  Keller  (1841-),  Habermann  (1849), 
Bartels  (1856-),  Greiner  (1869-),  Klinger  (1857-). 

Aside  from  these  men  there  are  several  notable  painters  with 


2Q4  HISTORY   OF    PAINTING 

German  affinities,  like  Munkacsy  (1S46-1900),  a  Hungarian, 
who  is  perhaps  more  Parisian  than  German  in  technique, 
and  Bocklin  (1S27  1001),  a  Swiss,  who  is  quite  by  himself 
in  fantastic  and  grotesque  subjects,  a  weird  and  uncanny 
imagination  and  a  brilliant  prismatic  coloring.  The  younger 
men  who  are  to-day  painting  in  Berlin,  Dresden,  or  Munich 
do  not  lack  for  novelty  of  theme,  modernity  of  view,  or  skill  in 
execution,  but  they  are  not  yet  cast  in  the  perspective  of  history 
and  for  that  reason  are  not  mentioned  here. 

EXTANT  WORKS:  German  art,  either  early  or  late,  cannot  be 
studied  effectively  outside  of  Germany.  The  local  museums  are 
many  and  contain  usually  both  ancient  and  modern  examples.  Early 
art  is,  perhaps,  best  seen  in  the  galleries  at  Berlin,  Dresden,  Cologne, 
Munich,  and  Vienna.  Modern  work  is  in  the  New  Gallery  at  Berlin, 
also  in  the  galleries  at  Dresden,  Hamburg,  Frankfort,  and  elsewhere. 
The  American  galleries  have  no  worthy  representation  of  German 
art  though  occasionally  a  modern  example  of  Munich  or  Diisseldorf 
is  to  be  found  on  the  walls. 


CHAPTER   XXI 

BRITISH   PAINTING 

Books  Recommended:  Armstrong,  Art  in  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland;  Gainsborough;  Sir  Henry  Raeburn;  Sir  Joshua 
Reynolds;  Scottish  Painters;  Turner;  Baldwin-Brown,  The 
Glasgow  School  of  Painters;  Burne- Jones,  Life  of  Sir  Edward 
Bur  tie- J  ones;  Burton,  Catalogue  of  Pictures  in  National  Gal- 
lery; Chesneau,  La  Peinture  anglaise;  Cook,  Art  in  England; 
Cunningham,  Lives  of  the  most  Eminent  British  Artists;  Dobson, 
Life  of  Hogarth;  Gilchrist,  Life  of  Blake;  Life  of  Etty;  Gower, 
Sir  Thomas  Lawrence;  Hamerton,  Life  of  Turner;  Henderson, 
Constable;  Hodgson,  Fifty  Years  of  British  Art;  Hunt,  The 
Pre-Raphaelite  Brotherhood  {Contemporary  Review,  1886): 
Leslie,  Life  of  Constable;  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds;  Martin  and 
Newberry,  Glasgow  School  of  Painting;  McKay,  Scottish  School 
of  Painting;  Millais,  Life  of  Sir  John  Everett  Millais;  Monk- 
house,  British  Contemporary  Artists;  Redgrave,  Dictionary 
of  Artists  of  the  English  School;  Romney,  Life  of  George  Rotn- 
ney;  Rossetti,  Fine  Art,  chiefly  Contemporary;  Ruskin,  Art 
in  England;  Pre-Raphaelitism;  Sandby,  History  of  Royal 
Academy  of  Arts;  William  Bell  Scott,  Autobiography;  Scott, 
British  Landscape  Painters;  Sizeranne,  Histoire  de  la  Peinture 
anglaise  content  p  or  aire;  Stephens,  Catalogue  of  Prints  atid 
Drawings  in  the  British  Museum;  Swinburne,  William  Blake; 
Temple,  Painting  in  the  Queen's  Reign;  Van  Dyke,  Old  English- 
Masters;  Walpole,  Anecdotes  of  Painting;  Ward  and  Roberts, 
Romney;  Wedmore,  Studies  in  English  Art;  Gleeson  White, 
The  Master  Painters  of  Britain;  Wilmot-Buxton,  English 
Painters;  Wright,  Life  of  Richard  Wilson. 

BRITISH  PAINTING:  It  may  be  premised  in  a  general  way, 
that  the  British  painters  have  never  possessed  a  pictorial 
cast  of  mind  in  the  sense  that  the  Italians,  the  French,  or  the 


296  HISTORY   OF    I'M  MING 

Dutch  have  possessed  it.  Painting,  as  a  purely  decorative 
arrangement  of  line  and  color,  has  been  somewhat  foreign  to 
their  conception.  Whether  this  failure. to  appreciate  painting 
as  decoration  is  the  result  of  geographical  position,  isolation, 
race  temperament,  or  mental  disposition,  would  be  hard  to 
determine.  It  is  quite  certain  that  from  time  immemorable 
the  English  people  have  not  been  lacking  in  the  appreciation 
of  beauty;  but  beauty  has  appealed  to  them,  not  so  much 
through  the  eye  in  painting  and  sculpture,  as  through  the  ear 
in  poetry  and  literature.  They  have  been  thinkers,  reasoners, 
moralists,  wTriters,  rather  than  observers  and  artists  in  color. 
Images  have  been  brought  to  their  minds  by  words  rather  than 
by  forms.  English  poetry  has  existed  since  the  days  of  Arthur 
and  the  Round  Table,  but  English  painting  is  of  comparatively 
modern  origin,  and  it  is  not  wonderful  that  the  original  leaning 
of  the  people  toward  literature  and  its  sentiment  should  find 
its  way  into  pictorial  representation.  As  a  result  one  may 
say  in  a  very  general  way  that  English  painting  is  more  illus- 
trative than  creative.  It  often  endeavors  to  record  things  that 
might  be  more  pertinently  and  completely  told  in  poetry, 
romance,  or  history.  The  conception  of  large  art  —  monu- 
mental and  historical  work  of  the  Rubens-Titian  type  —  has 
not  been  given  to  the  English  painters,  save  in  exceptional 
cases.  Their  success  has  been  in  portraiture  and  landscape, 
and  this  largely  by  reason  of  following  the  model. 

EARLY  PAINTING:  The  earliest  decorative  art  appeared 
in  Ireland.  It  was  possibly  brought  there  by  the  first  wave 
of  Christianity  that  reached  its  height  in  the  seventh  century. 
In  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries  manuscript  illumination  of  a 
Byzantine  cast,  with  local  modifications,  began  to  show.  In 
the  thirteenth  century  the  English  illuminations  had  achieved 
a  high  pitch  of  excellence  and  were  distinctive  of  the  time  and 
people.  This  nationality  in  art  increased  with  the  next 
century  though  some  Norman   influence  was  apparent  in  it. 


BRITISH  PAINTING 


297 


In  the  Middle  Ages  there  were  wall  paintings  and  church 
decorations  in  England,  as  elsewhere  in  Europe,  but  these 
have  largely  perished  through  time  and  wars.  There  are 
some  fragments  at  Durham  and  St.  Albans  supposed  to  date 
back  to  the  twelfth  century,  and  there  are  some  remains  of 
painting  in  Westminster  Abbey  that  are  said  to  be  of 
thirteenth-  and  fourteenth-century  origin. 


FIG.    134.  —  HOGARTH.      MARRIAGE   A   LA   MODE.      NATIONAL   GALLERY,   LONDON. 


From  the  fifteenth  to  the  eighteenth  century  the  English 
people  depended  for  portraiture  largely  upon  foreign  painters 
who  came  and  lived  in  England.  Holbein,  Rubens,  Van  Dyck, 
Lely,  Kneller  —  all  were  there  at  different  times,  in  the  service 
of  royalty.  The  outcome  of  manuscript  illumination  and 
Holbein's  example  produced  a  native  school  of  portrait 
miniature-painters  of  whom  Cooper  was  a  type,  and  many 
local  painters  followed  the  foreigners  as,  for  instances:  Bettes, 


2g8  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

Strete,  Cole,  Gower,  Bacon,  Jonson,  who  were  influenced  by 
Holbein  and  others;  Dobson,  Stone,  Lanier,  Jamisone,  Walker, 
who  followed  Van  Dyck ;  Greenhill  and  John  Hayls  who  came 
after  Lely  ;  Richardson  and  Hudson  who  derived  from  Kneller. 
But  English  painting  of  importance  hardly  dates  from  these 
primitives.  It  did  not  really  rise  until  the  beginning  of  the 
eighteenth  century  —  that  century  so  dead  in  art  over  all  the 

rest  of  Europe. 

FIGURE  AND  PORTRAIT  PAINTERS:  Aside  from  a  few  pre- 
cursors, such  as  Thornhill,  the  first  English  artist  of  note  was 
Hogarth  (i 697-1 764).  He  was  an  illustrator,  a  moralist, 
and  a  satirist  as  well  as  a  painter.  To  point  a  moral  upon 
canvas  by  depicting  the  vices  of  his  time  was  his  avowed  aim, 
but  in  doing  so  he  did  not  lose  sight  of  pictorial  beauty.  Charm 
of  color,  the  painter's  taste  in  arrangement,  light,  air,  setting, 
were  his  in  a  remarkable  degree.  He  was  not  successful  in 
large  compositions,  but  in  small  pictures  like  those  of  The 
Rake's  Progress  he  was  excellent.  An  early  man,  a  rigid 
stickler  for  the  representation,  a  keen  observer  of  physiognomy, 
a  satirist  with  a  sense  of  the  absurd,  he  was  often  warped  in 
his  art  by  the  necessities  of  his  subject  and  was  sometimes 
hard  and  dry  in  method;  but  in  his  best  work  he  was  quite  a 
perfect  painter.  He  was  the  first  of  the  English  school,  and 
perhaps  the  most  original  of  that  school.  This  is  quite  as 
true  of  his  technique  as  of  his  point  of  view.  Both  were  of  his 
own  creation.  His  subjects  have  been  talked  about  a  great 
deal  in  the  past;  but  his  painting  is  not  to  this  day  valued  as 
it  should  be. 

The  next  man  to  be  mentioned,  one  of  the  most  considerable 
of  all  the  English  school,  is  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds  (1723-1792). 
He  was  a  pupil  of  Hudson,  but  owed  his  art  to  many  sources. 
Besides  the  influence  of  Hogarth,  Van  Dyck,  Rembrandt,  he 
was  for  some  years  in  Italy,  a  diligent  student  of  the  great 
Italians,  especially  the  Venetians,  Corrcggio,  and  the  Bolognese 


BRITISH  PAINTING 


299 


Eclectics.  Sir  Joshua  was  inclined  to  be  eclectic  himself, 
for  he  was  not  a  man  of  very  lofty  imagination  or  great  in- 
vention —  not  a  great  original.  A  few  figure-pieces,  after  the 
Titian  initiative,  came  from  his  studio,  but  his  reputation  rests 
upon  his  many  portraits.     In  portraiture  he  was  often  beyond 


FIG.    I35.  REYNOLDS.       LADY    COCKBURN   AND    CHILDREN. 

NATIONAL   GALLERY,   LONDON. 

criticism,  giving  the  realistic  representation  with  dignity,  an 
elevated  spirit,  and  much  decorative  effect.  But  even  in 
portraiture,  with  handsome  women  for  sitters,  he  was  not  a 
painter  who  could  paint  enthusiastically  or  excite  enthusiasm 
in  the  spectator.  There  was  too  much  of  rule  and  precedent, 
too  much  regard  for  the  traditions,  for  him  to  do  anything 
inspired.     His  brush  work  and  composition  were  more  learned 


3°° 


HISTORY    OF    PAINTING 


than  individual,  and  his  color,  though  usually  good,  was  often- 
times conventional  in  contrast.  Taking  him  for  all  in  all  he 
was  a  very  cultivated  painter,  a  man  to  be  respected  and 
admired,  a  president  of  the  Royal  Academy  with  all  that  that 
implies,  but  he  had  not  quite  the  original  spirit  that  we  meet 
with  in  Gainsborough. 

Reynolds  was  well-grounded  in  Venetian  color,  Bolognese 
composition,  Parmese  light-and-shade,  and  paid  them  the 
homage  of  assimilation;  but  if  Gainsborough  (17 2 7-1 788) 
had  such  school  knowledge  he  subordinated  it  to  his  own  in- 
dividuality. He  disliked  all  conventionalities  and  formulas 
notwithstanding  he  was  influenced  by  the  Dutchmen  in  land- 
scape and  Van  Dyck  in  portraiture.  With  a  natural  taste  for 
form  and  color,  and  with  a  large  decorative  sense,  he  went 
much  to  nature,  and  took  from  her  the  materials  which  he 
fashioned  into  art  after  his  own  peculiar  manner.  His  cele- 
brated Blue  Boy  was  his  protest  against  the  conventional 
rule  of  Reynolds  that  a  composition  should  be  warm  in  color 
and  light.  All  through  his  work  we  meet  with  departures 
from  academic  ways.  By  dint  of  native  force  and  grace  he 
made  rules  unto  himself.  Some  of  them  were  not  entirely 
successful,  and  in  drawing  he  might  have  profited  by  school 
training;  but  he  was  of  a  peculiar  poetic  temperament,  with  a 
dash  of  melancholy  about  him,  and  preferred  to  work  in  his 
own  way.  In  portraiture  his  color  was  rather  cold;  in  land- 
scape much  warmer.  His  brush-work  was  as  odd  as  himself, 
but  usually  effective,  and  his  accessories  in  figure-painting 
were  little  more  than  decorative  after-thoughts.  Both  in 
portraiture  and  landscape  he  was  one  of  the  most  tempera- 
mental and  most  English  of  all  the  English  painters  —  a  man 
not  yet  entirely  appreciated,  though  from  the  first  ranked 
among  the  foremost  in  English  art. 

Romney  (1 734-1802),  a  pupil  of  Steele,  was  often  quite  as 
masterful  a    portrait-painter   as    either    Reynolds   or  Gains- 


BRITISH   PAINTING  301 

borough.  He  was  not  an  artist  elaborate  in  composition,  and 
his  best  works  are  bust-portraits  with  a  plain  background. 
These  he  did  with  much  dash  and  vivacity  of  manner.  His 
women,  particularly,  are  fine  in  life-like  pose  and  winsomeness 
of  mood.  He  was  a  very  cunning  observer,  and  occasionally 
was  very  remarkable  in  his  grace  of  line  and  freedom  of  brush; 
but  he  often  failed  in  making  his  pictures  hold  together  and 
groaned  in  spirit  over  his  faulty  composition.  He  was  ambi- 
tious and  aspiring  but  not  learned  or  wholly  masterful  or 
completely  successful. 

Contemporary  with  this  group  of  painters  were  a  number 
of  portrait-painters  in  the  second  rank  whose  names  may 
be  mentioned  —  Ramsay  (1713-1784),  Cotes  (1725-1770), 
Wright  of  Derby  (1734-1797),  Opie  (1761-1807),  Beechey 
(1 753-1839).  They  all  did  respectable  work  at  times  but  were 
distinctly  inferior  to  such  a  genius  as  the  Scotchman,  Raeburn 
(1 756-1823).  Raeburn  was  little  more  than  a  portrait  painter 
—  a  painter  of  heads  and  busts  rather  than  full-lengths  —  but 
his  fine  modelling,  his  simple  planes,  his  broad  square  touch, 
are  comparable  at  times  to  the  work  of  Velasquez.  His 
rather  hot  color  and  limited  composition  are  overlooked  in 
favor  of  his  powerful  realization  of  the  model,  his  sheer 
strength  as  a  painter.  Hoppner  (1 759-1810)  carried  on  the 
Reynolds  tradition  and  was  something  of  a  flatterer  with 
the  brush,  but  his  portraits  of  men  are  often  of  great  force 
and  excellence  —  notably  the  portrait  of  Pitt. 

Then  followed  Lawrence  (1 769-1830),  a  mixture  of  vivacious 
style  and  rather  meretricious  method.  He  was  the  most 
celebrated  painter  of  his  time,  largely  because  he  painted 
nobility  to  look  more  noble  than  the  reality,  and  grace  to  look 
more  gracious.  Fond  of  fine  types,  garments,  draperies,  colors, 
he  was  always  seeking  the  sparkling  rather  than  the  true,  and 
forcing  artificial  effects  for  the  sake  of  startling  one  rather 
than  stating  facts  simply  and  frankly.     He  was  facile  with 


302  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

the  brush,  clever  in  line  and  color,  brilliant  to  the  last  degree, 
but  Lacking  in  that  simplicity  of  view  and  method  which  marks 
the  great  mind.  His  composition  was  rather  fine  in  its  deco- 
rative effect,  and,  though  his  lights  were  often  faulty  when 
compared  with  nature,   they  were  no  less  telling  from   the 


FIG.    136.  —  GAINSBOROUGH.      MRS.    SIDDONS.      NATIONAL 
GALLERY,   LONDON. 

standpoint  of  picture-making.  He  was  much  admired  by 
artists  in  his  day,  and,  as  a  technician,  he  certainly  had  more 
than  average  ability.  He  was  hardly  an  artist  like  Reynolds 
or  Gainsborough,  but  among  the  mediocre  painters  of  his  day 
he  shone  like  a  star.  It  is  not  worth  while  to  say  much  about 
his  contemporaries.     Etty  (1 787-1849)  was  one  of  the  best  of 


BRITISH  PAINTING  303 

those  devoted  to  figure  painting  and  he  showed  skill  in  drawing 
the  nude,  but  his  Greek  types  and  classic  aspirations  grow  a 
little  wearisome  on  acquaintance.  Haydon  (1 786-1846)  was 
ambitious  but  never  a  great  success;  Copley,  on  the  contrary, 
was  very  successful  in  England,  as  was  also  West,  but  they 
were  both  American  born  and  find  mention  in  the  next 
chapter. 

William  Blake  (175 7- 182 7)  was  hardly  a  painter  at  all, 
though  he  drew  and  colored  the  strange  figures  of  his  fancy 
and  cannot  be  passed  over  in  any  history  of  English  art.  He 
was  perhaps  the  most  imaginative  artist  of  English  birth, 
though  that  imagination  was  often  disordered  and  almost 
incoherent.  He  was  not  a  correct  draftsman,  a  man  with 
no  great  color-sense,  and  a  workman  without  technical  train- 
ing; and  yet,  in  spite  of  all  this,  he  drew  some  figures  that  are 
almost  sublime  in  their  sweep  and  power.  His  decorative 
sense  in  rilling  space  with  lines  is  well  shown  in  his  illustrations 
to  the  Book  of  Job.  Weird  and  uncanny  in  thought,  delving 
into  the  unknown,  he  opened  a  world  of  mystery,  peopled  with 
a  strange  Apocalyptic  race,  whose  writhing,  flowing  bodies  are 
the  epitome  of  graceful  grandeur. 

GENRE-PAINTERS:  From  Blake  to  Morland  (1 763-1 804)  is 
a  step  across  space  from  heaven  to  earth.  Morland  was  a 
realist  of  English  country  life,  horses  at  tavern-doors,  cattle, 
pigs.  He  was  also  something  of  a  sentimentalist  and  picture- 
maker  in  his  representations  of  graceful  groups  of  children 
and  young  girls.  What  he  believed  his  pictures  do  not  tell  us. 
All  we  know  is  that  in  gracefulness  of  representation,  simplicity 
of  painting,  richness  of  color  and  light,  his  pictures  were  often 
of  a  fine  quality.  As  a  skilful  technician  he  stood  quite  alone 
in  his  time,  and  seemed  to  show  more  affinity  with  the  Dutch 
ge?zre-painters  than  the  English  portrait-painters.  His  works 
are  much  prized  to-day,  and  were  so  during  the  painter's  life 
—  a  reckless  dissipated  life  that  ended  prematurely. 


3°4 


EHSTORY   OK    PAINTING 


Sir  David  Wilkie  (1785-1841)  was  also  somewhat  like  the 
Dutch  in  subject,  a  genre-painter,  fond  of  the  village  fete  and 
depicting  it  with  careful  detail,  a  limpid  brush,  and  good  text- 
ural  effects.  In  1825  he  travelled  abroad,  was  gone  some  years, 
was  impressed  by  Velasquez,  Correggio,  and  Rembrandt, 
and  completely  changed  his  style.     He  then  became  a  portrait 


FIG.    137.  —  MORLAND.      THE   INN. 

and  historical  painter.  He  never  outlived  the  nervous  con- 
straint that  shows  in  all  his  pictures,  and  his  brush,  though 
facile  within  limits,  was  never  free  or  bold  as  compared  with  a 
Dutchman  like  Ostade.  In  technical  methods  Landseer (1802- 
1873),  the  painter  of  animals,  was  somewhat  like  him.  That 
is  to  say,  they  both  had  a  method  of  painting  surfaces  and 
rendering  textures  that  was  more  " smart"  than  powerful. 
There  is  little  solidity  or  depth  to  the  brush-work  of  either, 
though  both  are  impressive  to  the  spectator  at  first  sight. 
Landseer  knew  the  habits  and  the  anatomy  of  animals  very 
well,  but  he  never  had  an  appreciation  of  the  brute  in  the 


BRITISH   PAINTING  305 

animal,  such  as  we  see  in  the  pictures  of  Velasquez  or  the 
bronzes  of  Barye.  The  Landseer  animal  has  too  much  senti- 
ment about  it.  The  dogs,  for  instance,  are  generally  given 
those  emotions  pertinent  to  humanity,  and  which  are  only 
exceptionally  true  of  the  canine  race.  This  very  feature  —  the 
tendency  to  humanize  the  brute  and  make  it  tell  a  story  — 
accounts  in  large  measure  for  the  popularity  of  Landseer's 
art.  The  work  is  perhaps  correct  enough,  but  the  aim  of  it 
is  somewhat  afield  from  pure  painting.  It  illustrates  the  lit- 
erary rather  than  the  pictorial.  Following  Wilkie  the  most 
distinguished  painter  was  Mulready  (1786-1863),  whose  pic- 
tures of  village  boys  are  well  known  through  engravings. 
Stothard  (1755- 1834)  was  more  of  an  illustrator  and  designer 
of  textile  patterns  than  a  painter  though  he  has  left  a  large 
number  of  small  pictures  charming  in  their  spirit  and  their 
decorative   color. 

THE  LANDSCAPE  PAINTERS:  In  landscape  the  English 
have  had  something  to  say  peculiarly  their  own.  It  has  not 
always  been  well  said,  the  coloring  is  often  hot,  the  brush- 
work  brittle,  the  attention  to  detail  inconsistent  with  the  large 
view  of  nature,  yet  such  as  it  is  it  shows  the  English  point  of 
view  and  is  valuable  on  that  account.  Richard  Wilson  (1713- 
1782)  was  the  first  landscapist  of  importance,  though  he  was 
not  so  English  in  view  as  some  others  to  follow.  In  fact, 
Wilson  was  nurtured  on  Claude  Lorrain  and  Zuccarelli  and 
instead  of  painting  the  realistic  English  landscape  he  painted 
the  pseudo-Italian  landscape.  He  began  working  in  portrai- 
ture under  the  tutorship  of  Wright,  and  achieved  some  success 
in  this  department;  but  in  1749  he  went  to  Italy  and  devoted 
himself  wholly  to  landscapes.  These  were  of  the  classic  type 
and  somewhat  conventional.  The  composition  was  usually 
a  dark  foreground  with  trees  or  buildings  to  right  and  left, 
an  opening  in  the  middle  distance  leading  into  the  background, 
and  a  broad  expanse  of  sunset  sky.     In  the  foreground  he 


306 


HISTORY   OF    PAINTING 


usually  introduced  a  few  figures  for  romantic  or  classic  asso- 
ciation. Considerable  elevation  of  theme  and  spirit  marks 
most  of  his  pictures  and  all  of  them  have  a  classic  repose  sug- 
gestive  of  Claude.  His  canvases  did  not  meet  with  much  suc- 
cess at  the  time  they  were  painted.  In  more  modern  days 
Wilson  has  been  ranked  as  the  true  founder  of  landscape  in 
England,  and  one  of  the  most  sincere  of  English  painters. 


FIG.    138.  —  TURNER.      FIGHTING   TEMERAIRE.      TATE   GALLERY,    LONDON. 

THE  NORWICH  SCHOOL:  Old  Crome  (1769-1821),  though 
influenced  to  some  extent  by  Wilson  and  the  Dutch  painters, 
was  an  original  talent,  painting  English  scenery  with  much 
simplicity  and  considerable  power.  He  was  sometimes  rasp- 
ing with  his  brush,  and  had  a  small  method  of  recording  details 
combined  with  mannerisms  of  drawing  and  composition,  and 
yet  gave  an  out-of-doors  feeling  in  light  and  air  that  was 
astonishing.  His  large  trees  have  truth  of  mass  and  accuracy 
of   drawing,  and   his  foregrounds  are   painted  with   solidity. 


BRITISH  PAINTING  307 

He  was  a  keen  student  of  nature,  and  drew  about  him  a  number 
of  landscape  painters  at  Norwich,  who  formed  the  Norwich 
School.  Crome  was  its  leader,  and  the  school  made  its  in- 
fluence felt  upon  English  landscape  painting.  J.  B.  Crome 
(1793-1842),  Stark  (1794-1859),  Vincent  (1796-1830),  be- 
longed to  it,  but  Cotman  (1 782-1842)  was  the  best  painter  of 
the  group.  His  water-color  drawings  of  architecture,  land- 
scape, and  harbor  scenes  are  excellent  in  breadth  and  color. 
Moreover  he  had  imagination  and  fine  feeling  to  a  greater 
extent  than  any  other  of  the  school. 

The  most  noteworthy  of  the  English  landscapists,  with  the 
exception  of  Turner,  was  John  Constable  (17 76-183 7).  His 
foreign  bias,  such  as  it  was,  came  from  a  study  of  the  Dutch 
masters.  There  were  two  sources  from  which  the  English 
landscapists  drew.  Those  who  were  inclined  to  the  classic, 
men  like  Wilson,  Calcott  (1 779-1844),  and  Turner,  drew 
from  the  Italian  of  Poussin  and  Claude;  those  who  were 
content  to  do  nature  in  her  real  dress,  men  like  Gains- 
borough and  Constable,  drew  from  the  Dutch  of  Hobbema 
and  his  contemporaries.  A  certain  sombreness  of  color  and 
manner  of  composition  in  Constable  may  be  attributed  to 
Holland;  but  these  were  slight  features  as  compared  with  the 
originality  of  the  man.  He  was  a  close  student  of  nature  who 
painted  what  he  saw  in  English  country  life,  and  painted  it 
with  a  knowledge  and  an  artistic  sensitiveness  never  surpassed 
in  England.  The  rural  feeling  was  strong  with  him,  and  his 
evident  pleasure  in  simple  scenes  is  readily  communicated 
to  the  spectator.  There  is  no  attempt  at  the  grand  or  the 
heroic.  He  never  cared  much  for  mountains,  but  was  fond  of 
cultivated  uplands,  trees,  bowling  clouds,  and  torn  skies. 
Bursts  of  sunlight,  storms,  atmospheres,  all  pleased  him. 
With  detail  he  was  little  concerned.  He  saw  landscape  in 
large  patches  of  form  and  color,  and  so  painted  it.  His  hand- 
ling was  broad  and  solid,  and  at  times  a  little  heavy.     His 


3oS  HISTORY   OF    PAINTING 

light  was  often  forced  by  sharp  contrast  with  shadows,  and 
frequently  his  pictures  appear  spotty  from  isolated  glitters  of 
light  strewn  here  and  there.  In  color  he  helped  eliminate  the 
brown  landscape  and  substituted  in  its  place  the  green  and 
blue  of  nature.     In  atmosphere  he  was  excellent.     His  influ- 


FIG.    I3Q.  —  CONSTABLE.      COTTAGE.      SOUTH    KENSINGTON 

MUSEUM. 


ence  upon  English  art  was  impressive,  and  in  1824  the  exhibi- 
tion at  Paris  of  his  Hay  Wain,  together  with  some  work  by 
Bonington  and  Fielding,  is  supposed  to  have  had  an  effect 
upon  the  painters  of  the  Fontainebleau-Barbizon  School;  but 
this  latter  influence  has  been  exaggerated  in  statement. 


BRITISH  PAINTING  309 

Bonington  (1801-1828)  died  young,  and  though  of  English 
parents  his  training  was  essentially  French,  and  he  really 
belonged  to  the  French  school  —  an  associate  of  Delacroix. 
His  study  of  the  Venetians  turned  his  talent  toward  warm 
coloring,  in  which  he  excelled.  In  landscape  his  broad 
handling  was  somewhat  related  to  that  of  Constable,  and 
from  the  fact  of  their  works  appearing  together  in  the  Salon  of 
1824  they  are  often  spoken  of  as  influencers  of  the  modern 
French  landscape  painters. 

Turner  (1 775-1851)  is  perhaps  the  best  known  name  in 
English  art.  His  celebrity  is  somewhat  disproportionate  to 
his  real  merits,  though  it  is  impossible  to  deny  his  great  ability. 
He  was  a  man  learned  in  all  the  forms  of  nature  and  schooled 
in  all  the  formulas  of  art;  yet  he  was  not  a  profound  lover  of 
nature  or  a  faithful  recorder  of  what  things  he  saw  in  nature, 
except  in  his  early  days.  In  the  bulk  of  his  work  he  showed 
the  traditions  of  Claude,  with  additions  of  his  own.  His  taste 
was  a  mixture  of  the  romantic  and  the  classic  (he  possessed 
all  the  knowledge  and  belongings  of  the  historical  land- 
scape), and  he  delighted  in  great  stretches  of  country  broken 
by  sea-shores,  rivers,  high  mountains,  fine  buildings,  and  il- 
lumined by  blazing  sunlight  and  gorgeous  skies.  His  com- 
position was  at  times  bombastic  in  its  vast  perspective  and 
sweeping  horizon  lines;  his  light  was  usually  bewildering  in 
intensity  and  often  unrelieved  by  shadows  of  sufficient  depth; 
his  tone  was  sometimes  faulty  and  distorted  for  effect.  In 
color  he  was  not  always  harmonious,  but  inclined  to  be  Capri- 
cious, uneven,  showing  fondness  for  arbitrary  if  decorative 
schemes  of  color.  The  object  of  his  work  seems  to  have  been 
to  dazzle,  to  impress  with  a  wilderness  of  lines  and  hues,  to 
overawe  by  imposing  scale  and  grandeur.  His  paintings  are 
impressive,  ornate,  splendid,  but  often  they  smack  of  the  stage, 
and  are  as  frequently  grandiloquent  as  grand.  His  early 
works,  especially  in  water-colors,  where  he  shows  himself  a 


310  HISTORY    OF    PAINTING 

follower  of  Girtin,  arc  saner  than  his  later  canvases  in  oil. 
The  water-colors  are  carefully  done,  subdued  in  color,  and  true 
in  light.  They  belong  in  his  first  period.  From  1802,  or 
thereabouts,  to  1830  was  his  second  period,  in  which  Italian 
composition  and  much  color  were  used.  The  last  twenty  years 
of  his  life  he  inclined  to  the  bizarre,  and  turned  his  canvases 
into  color  masses  that  are  often  incoherent  but  nevertheless 
supremely  beautiful.  With  all  his  shortcomings  Turner  was 
an  artist  to  be  respected  and  admired.     He  knew  his  craft, 


FIG.    140.  —  MILLAIS.      VALE   OF   REST.      TATE   GALLERY,      LONDON. 

in  fact,  knew  it  so  well  that  he  relied  too  much  on  artificial 
effects,  drew  away  from  the  model  of  nature,  and  finally  passed 
into  the  extravagant. 

THE  WATER-COLORISTS:  About  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century  a  school  of  water-colorists,  founded  orig- 
inally by  Cozens  (1752-1799)  and  Girtin  (1775-1802),  came 
into  prominence  and  developed  English  art  in  a  new  direction. 
It  began  to  show  with  a  new  force  the  transparency  of  skies, 
the  luminosity  of  shadows,  the  delicacy  and  grace  of  clouds, 
the  brilliancy  of  light  and  color.  Sandby  and  Blake  were 
primitives  in  the  use  of  the  medium,  but  Stothard  employed 


BRITISH  PAINTING  311 

it  with  much  sentiment,  charm,  and  plein-air  effect.  Turner 
was  quite  a  master  of  it,  and  his  best  preserved  work  is  done 
in  it.  Fielding  (1 787-1855)  used  water-color  effectively  in 
giving  large  feeling  for  space  and  air;  Prout  (1783-185 2)  em- 
ployed it  in  architectural  drawings  of  the  principal  cathedrals 
of  Europe;  and  Cox  (1783-1859),  Dewint  (1784-1849),  Hunt 
(1790-1S64),  Cattermole  (1800-1868),  men  whose  names  only 
can  be  mentioned,  all  won  recognition  with  this  medium. 
Water-color  drawing  is  to-day  said  to  be  a  department  of  art 
that  expresses  the  English  pictorial  feeling  better  than  any 
other,  though  this  is  not  an  undisputed  statement. 

PRE-RAPHAELITISM :  This  important  movement  in  Eng- 
lish painting  was  started  about  1847,  primarily  by  Rossetti 
(1828-1882),  Holman  Hunt  (182 7-1 9 10),  and  Sir  John  Mfllais 
(1829-1896),  associated  with  several  sculptors"-~atLoT"poets, 
seven  in  all.  It  was  an  emulation  of  the  sincerity,  the  loving 
care,  and  the  scrupulous  exactness  in  truth  that  characterized 
the  Italian  painters  before  Raphael.  Its  advocates,  including 
Mr.  Ruskin  the  critic,  maintained  that  after  Raphael  came  that 
fatal  facility  in  art  which  seeking  grace  of  composition  lost 
truth  of  fact  and  spontaneity,  and  that  the  proper  course  for 
modern  painters  was  to  return  to  the  sincerity  and  veracity 
of  the  early  masters.  Hence  the  name  pre-Raphaelitism,  and 
the  signatures  on  their  early  pictures,  P.  R.  B.,  pre-Raphaelite 
Brother.  To  this  attempt  to  gain  the  true  regardless  of  every- 
thing else  was  added  a  morbidity  of  thought  mingled  with 
mysticism,  moral  and  religious  pose,  and  studied  simplicity. 
Some  of  the  painters  of  the  Brotherhood  went  so  far  as  fol- 
lowing the  habits  of  the  early  Italians,  seeking  retirement 
from  the  world,  and  carrying  with  them  a  Gothic  earnestness 
of  air.  There  is  no  doubt  about  the  sincerity  that  entered 
into  the  movement.  It  was  an  honest  effort  to  gain  the  true, 
the  good,  and  as  a  result,  the  beautiful;  but  it  was  no  less 
a  striven-after  honesty  and  an   imitated  earnestness.     The 


312 


HISTORY    OF    PAINTING 


Brotherhood  did  not  last  for  long,  the  members  drifted  from 
each  other  and  began  to  paint,  each  after  his  own  style,  and 
pre-Raphaelitism  passed  away  as  it  had  arisen,  though  not 
without  leaving  a  powerful  stamp  on  English  art,  especially 
in    decoration. 

Rossetti,  an  Italian  by  birth  though  English  by  adoption, 
was  the  type  of  the  Brotherhood.  He  was  more  of  a  poet 
than  a  painter,  took  most  of  his  subjects  from  Dante,  and 


FIG.    141.  —  BURNE-JONES.      LOVE   AMONG    THE    RUINS. 

painted  as  he  wrote,  in  a  mystical  romantic  spirit.  He  was 
always  of  a  retiring  disposition  and  never  exhibited  publicly 
after  he  was  twenty-eight  years  of  age.  As  a  draftsman 
he  was  awkward  in  line  and  not  always  true  in  modelling. 
In  color  he  was  not  remarkable  save  by  contrast  with  his 
associates  though  he  had  considerable  decorative  sense.  The 
shortcoming  of  his  art,  as  with  that  of  the  others  of  the  Brother- 
hood, was  that  in  seeking  truth  of  detail  he  lost  truth  of 
ensemble.  This  is  perhaps  better  exemplified  in  the  works  of 
Holman  Hunt.     He  spent  infinite  pains  in  getting  the  truth  of 


BRITISH   PAINTING  313 

detail  in  his  pictures;  he  travelled  in  the  East  and  painted 
types,  costumes,  and  scenery  in  Palestine  to  gain  the  historic 
truths  of  his  Scriptural  scenes;  but  all  that  he  produced  was 
little  more  than  a  survey,  a  report,  a  record  of  the  facts.  The 
insistence  upon  every  detail  isolated  all  the  facts  and  left 
them  isolated  in  the  pictures.  In  seeking  the  minute  truths 
he  overlooked  the  great  truths  of  light,  air,  and  setting.  His 
color  was  crude,  his  values  were  never  well  preserved,  and  his 
brush-work  was  always  hard  and  tortured. 

Millais  showed  some  of  this  disjointed  effect  in  his  early 
work  when  he  was  a  member  of  the  Brotherhood.  He  did 
not  hold  to  his  early  convictions,  however,  and  soon  aban- 
doned the  pre-Raphaelite  methods  for  a  more  conventional 
style.  He  painted  some  remarkable  portraits  and  some 
excellent  figure  pieces,  and  all  told  held  high  rank  in  English 
art;  but  he  was  an  uneven  painter,  often  doing  weak,  harshly- 
colored  work.  Moreover,  the  English  tendency  to  tell 
stories  with  the  paint-brush  found  in  Millais  a  faithful 
upholder. 

Madox  Brown  (1821-1893)  never  joined  the  Brotherhood, 
though  his  leaning  was  toward  its  principles  and  he  certainly 
had  a  strong  influence  upon  Rossetti.  He  had  considerable 
dramatic  power,  with  which  he  illustrated  historic  scenes, 
and  among  contemporary  artists  stood  well.  The  most 
decided  influence  of  pre-Raphaelitism  shows  in  Burne- Jones 
(1833-1898),  a  pupil  of  Rossetti,  and  one  of  the  most  original 
painters  of  the  English  school.  From  Rossetti  he  got  mysti- 
cism, sentiment,  poetry,  and  from  association  with  Swinburne 
and  William  Morris,  the  poets,  something  of  the  literary  in 
art,  which  he  put  forth  with  artistic  effect.  He  did  not  follow 
the  Brotherhood  in  its  pursuit  of  absolute  truth  of  fact,  but 
used  facts  for  decorative  effect  in  line  and  color.  His  ability 
to  fill  a  given  space  gracefully  shows  with  fine  results  in  his 
pictures,  as  in  his  stained-glass  designs.     He  was  only  a  fair 


3H 


HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 


draftsman  and  modeller,  a  rather  frail  colorist,  and  in  brush- 
work  he  was  labored,  and  unique  in  dryness.     He  was,  however, 
a  man  of  much  imagination,  and  his  conceptions,  though  illus- 
trative of  literature,  do  not  suffer  thereby  because  his  treat- 
ment   did   not   sacrifice   the 
artistic.     He   has   been    the 
butt  of  considerable  shallow 
laughter  from  time  to  time, 
like   many    another  man  of 
ability.   Albert  Moore  (1840- 
1893),  a  graceful  painter  of 
a    decorative     ideal    type, 
rather  followed  the  Rossetti- 
Burne- Jones  example,  and  is 
an  illustration  of   the  influ- 
ence of  pre-Raphaelitism,  as 
are  also   Lewis   (1S05-1876) 
and  John  Brett  (183 2- 1902). 
LATER  FIGURE  AND  POR- 
TRAIT PAINTERS:    The   in- 
fluence  of  pre-Raphaelitism 
had  almost  died  out  in  1875. 
To  it  there  succeeded  a  cos- 
mopolitanism —  a  picking 
and    choosing    of    whatever 
was  best  in  modern  art  with 
a   leaning    and  a  liking  for 
French  methods.    ,  This  was 
not  marked  with  the  older 
men  but  toward  the  end  of 
the     century     the     younger 
men  showed  it.     Sir  Frederick  Leighton  (1830-1896),  during 
his  life,  was  ranked  as  a  fine  academic  draftsman,  but  not  a 
man  with  the  color-sense  or  the  brushman's  quality  in  his 


FIG.    142.  —  LEIGHTON.      LACHRYMAK. 
METROPOLITAN    MUSEUM,    NEW    YORK. 


BRITISH  PAINTING  315 

work.  Watts  (1 8 18-1904)  was  perhaps  a  labored  technician, 
and  in  color  was  often  sombre;  but  he  was  a  man  of  much 
imagination,  occasionally  rose  to  grandeur  in  conception,  and 
painted  some  superb  portraits,  notably  the  one  of  Walter 
Crane.  Some  of  his  earlier  works  are  almost  Venetian  in  their 
decorative  quality.  Orchardson  (1835-1910)  was  more  of  a 
painter,  pure  and  simple,  than  Watts  and  an  excellent  if  man- 
nered colorist.  He  was  a  Scotchman  who  did  historical  figure 
pieces  and  portraits.  In  portraiture  Holl  (1845-1888)  had 
a  forceful  method  of  presentation  and  at  the  present  time 
William  Orpen,  an  Irishman,  is  decidedly  the  leader  among 
the  younger  men.  There  are  a  number  of  older  portrait 
painters  —  Herkomer,  Ouless,  Sir  George  Reid  —  who  have 
done  excellent  work. 

LANDSCAPE  AND  MARINE  PAINTERS:  In  the  depart- 
ment of  landscape  there  are  also  many  painters  in  England  of 
contemporary  importance.  Vicat  Cole  (1 833-1 893)  had  con- 
siderable exaggerated  reputation  as  a  depicter  of  sunsets  and 
twilights;  Cecil  Lawson  (1851-1882)  gave  promise  of  great 
accomplishment,  and  lived  long  enough  to  do  some  excellent 
work  in  the  style  of  the  French  Rousseau,  mingled  with  an 
influence  from  Gainsborough;  Alfred  Parsons  was  a  little  hard 
and  precise  in  his  work;  Sir  Alfred  East  was  more  poetic  and 
perhaps  more  effective;  while  Edward  Stott  and  J.  R.  Reid 
have  given  individual  interpretations  of  nature  of  much  charm. 
In  marines  Hook  (1819-1907)  belonged  to  the  older  school, 
and  was  not  entirely  satisfactory.  The  best  sea-painter  in 
England  was  Henry  Moore  (1831-1895),  a  man  who  painted 
well  and  gave  the  large  feeling  of  the  ocean  with  fine  color 
qualities.  After  him  should  be  mentioned  Napier  (Henry)  fTe- 
W.  L.  Wyllie,  Edwin  Hayes.  Some  contemporary  painters 
that  defy  classification  should  be  noted  here  —  Frank  Brang- 
wyn,  a  decorative  painter  of  marked  distinction,  and  J.  M. 
Swan,  an  excellent  painter  of  animals. 


316 


HISTORY  OF  painting 


NEWLYN  SCHOOL:  This  was  not  a  school  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  word  so  much  as  an  association  of  young  men  in 
a  colony  on  the  Cornish  coast.  There  was,  of  course,  some 
similarity  of  view  and  method  among  them  with  plenty  of  room 
left  for  individual  expression.  Stanhope  Forbes  was  the  real 
Leader  and  among  others  who  belonged  to  it  were  Frank  Bramley, 
Norman  Garstin,  H.  S.  Tuke,  and  T.  C.  Gotch. 

SCOTTISH  SCHOOL:  A  group 
of  painters  at  Glasgow  some  years 
ago  rapidly  developed  into  what  is 
known  as  a  Scottish  School.  They 
were  all  more  or  less  influenced  at 
first  by  the  French  romanticists  and 
the  Fontainebleau-Barbizon  painters 
and  later  on,  especially  the  younger 
men,  fell  under  the  influence  of 
William  McTaggart  and  Whistler. 
Some  of  the  men  who  have  won 
distinct  success  in  that  school  are 
E.  A.  Walton,  Sir  James  Guthrie, 
George  Henry,  Edward  Hornel,  John 
Lavery,  Joseph  Crawhall,  Alexander 
Roche,  John  Lawson,  A.  McBride, 
Thomas  Morton,  Henry  Spence, 
James  Paterson,  James  Hamilton, 
D.  Y.  Cameron,  Arthur  Melville. 

MODERN  MOVEMENTS  AND 
MEN:  The  cosmopolitan  tendency 
of  modern  English  art  goes  little  farther  than  Paris.  Many 
of  the  painters  have  accepted  the  methods  of  men  like 
Courbe',  Corot,  Manet,  or  Monet  and  combined  French 
technique  with  native  view  and  feeling.  For  some  years  the 
works  of  these  men- -P.  W.  Steer,  Arthur  Hacker,  C.  W. 
Furse,  Mark   Fisher,  S.  J.  Solomon,   Walter  Sickert,  J.    R. 


FIG.    143.  —  WATTS.      LOVE 
\M»    DEATH. 


BRITISH   PAINTING  317 

Reid,  A.  D.  Peppercorn,  and  painters  of  the  Scotch  school 
mentioned  above  —  were  shown  at  the  new  English  Art  Club. 
The  more  modern  of  the  moderns  have  of  recent  years  displayed 
their  outputs  at  the  exhibitions  of  the  International  Society 
where  for  the  present  they  may  be  left  without  comment. 

EXTANT  WORKS:  English  art  cannot  be  seen  to  advantage, 
outside  of  England.  In  the  Metropolitan  Museum,  N.Y.,  and  in 
private  collections  there  are  some  good  examples  of  the  older  men 
—  Reynolds,  Turner,  Gainsborough,  and  their  contemporaries.  In 
the  Louvre  there  are  some  indifferent  Constables  and  some  good 
Boningtons.  In  England  the  best  collection  is  in  the  National  Gal- 
lery, the  Tate  Gallery,  and  the  Wallace  Collection.  Next  to  this  the 
South  Kensington  Museum  for  Constable  sketches.  Elsewhere  the 
Glasgow,  Edinburgh,  Liverpool,  Windsor  galleries,  and  the  private 
collections  of  the  Duke  of  Westminster,  and  others.  Turner  is  well 
represented  in  the  Tate  Gallery,  though  his  oils  have  suffered  through 
time  and  the  use  of  fugitive  pigments.  For  the  living  men,  their 
work  may  be  seen  in  the  yearly  exhibitions  at  the  Royal  Academy 
and  elsewhere.  There  are  comparatively  few  modern  English  pictures 
in  America. 


CHAPTER   XXII 

AMERICAN  PAINTING 

Books  Recommended:  American  Art  Review;  Amory, 
Life  of  Copley;  The  Art  Review;  Balch,  Art  in  America  before 
the  Revolution;  Caffin,  American  Masters  of  Painting;  Clement 
and  Hutton,  Artists  of  the  Nineteenth  Century;  Colden,  Life  of 
Fulton;  Cortissoz,  John  La  Farge;  Cox,  Artist  and  Public;  Wins- 
law  Homer;  Cummings,  Historic  A  nnals  of  the  National  Academy 
of  Design;  Downes,  Boston  Painters  (in  Atlantic  Monthly,  Vol. 
62);  Dunlap,  Arts  of  Design  in  United  States;  Durand,  Life  and 
Times  of  A.  B.  Durand;  Duret,  Whistler;  Flagg,  Life  and  Let- 
ters of  Washington  Allston;  French,  Art  and  Artists  of  Connecti- 
cut; Gait,  Life  of  West;  Healy,  Reminiscences  of  a  Portrait 
Painter;  Isham,  History  of  American  Painting;  King,  American 
Mural  Painting;  Knowlton,  W.  M.  Hunt;  Lester,  The  Artists 
of  America;  Low,  A  Painter's  Progress;  Mason,  Life  and  Works 
of  Gilbert  Stuart;  Mather,  Homer  Martin;  Meynell,  John  S. 
Sargent;  Morse,  Letters  and  Journals  of  S.  F.  B.  Morse;  Pennell, 
Life  of  Whistler;  Perkins,  Copley;  Sheldon,  American  Painters; 
Recent  Ideals  of  American  Art;  Trumble,  George  Inness;  Trum- 
bull, Autobiography  and  Letters;  Tuckerman,  Book  of  the  Artists; 
Van  Dyke,  Art  for  Art's  Sake;  Van  Rensselaer,  Six  Portraits; 
Vedder,  Digressions  of  V.;  Waern,  John  La  Farge;  Ware,  Lec- 
tures on  Allston;  White,  A  Sketch  of  Chester  A.  Harding. 

AMERICAN  ART:  It  is  hardly  possible  to  predicate  much 
about  the  environment  as  it  affects  art  in  America.  The 
result  of  the  climate,  the  temperament,  and  the  mixture  of 
nations  in  the  production  or  non-production  of  painting  in 
America  cannot  be  accurately  computed  at  this  early  stage 
of  history.  One  thing  only  is  certain,  and  that  is,  that  the 
building  of  a  new  commonwealth  out  of  primeval  nature  does 


AMERICAN  PAINTING  319 

not   call   for  the  production  of  art  in  the  early  periods  of 
development. 

The  first  centuries  in  the  history  of  America  were  devoted 
to  securing  the  necessities  of  life,  the  energies  of  the  time  were 
of  a  practical  nature,  and  art  as  an  indigenous  product  was 
hardly  known.  After  the  Revolution,  and  indeed  before  it, 
a  hybrid  portraiture,  largely  borrowed  from  England,  began 
to  appear,  and  after  1825  there  was  an  attempt  at  landscape 
work:  but  painting  as  an  art  worthy  of  very  serious  consid- 
eration came  in  only  with  the  sudden  growth  in  wealth  and 
taste  following  the  War  of  the  Rebellion  and  the  Centennial 
Exhibition  of  1876.  The  best  of  American  art  dates  after 
1878,  though  during  the  earlier  years  there  were  painters  of 
note  who  cannot  be  passed  over  unmentioned. 

THE  EARLY  PAINTERS:  The  "limner,"  or  the  man  who 
could  draw  and  color  a  portrait,  seems  to  have  existed  very 
early  in  American  history.  Smibert  (1684-1751),  a  Scotch 
painter,  who  settled  in  Boston,  Watson  (1685 ?-i  768),  another 
Scotchman,  who  settled  in  New  Jersey,  Blackburn  (1700?- 
1765),  who  was  at  Boston  for  fifteen  years,  were  of  this  class 
—  men  capable  of  giving  a  likeness,  and  a  little  more. 
They  were  followed  by  English  painters  of  even  less  conse- 
quence. Then  came  Copley  (1737-1815)  and  West  (1738- 
1820),  with  whom  painting  in  America  really  began.  They 
were  good  men  for  their  time,  but  it  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  the  times  for  art  were  not  at  all  favorable.  West  was  a 
man  about  whom  many  infant-prodigy  tales  have  been  told, 
but  he  never  grew  to  be  a  great  artist.  He  was  ambitious 
beyond  his  power,  indulged  in  theatrical  composition,  was 
hot  in  color,  and  never  was  at  ease  in  handling  the  brush. 
Most  of  his  life  was  passed  in  England,  where  he  had  a  vogue, 
was  elected  President  of  the  Royal  Academy,  and  became 
practically  a  British  painter.  Copley  perhaps  was  more 
American  than  West,  and  more  of  a  painter  though  he,  too, 


320 


HISTORY   OF   PAINTING 


passed  most  of  his  life  in  England  and  is  usually  regarded  as 
an  English  painter.  Some  of  his  portraits  are  exceptionally 
fine,  and  his  figure  pieces,  such  as  Charles  I  Demanding  the 
Five  Members  of  House  of  Commons,  are  excellent  in  color  and 
composition.     The  National  Gallery,  London,  possesses  good 


FIG.    I44.  —  COPLEY.      LADY    WENTWORTH.      NEW    YORK 
PUBLIC    LIBRARY. 


examples  of  his  larger  canvases.  C.  W.  Peale  (1741-1827), 
a  pupil  of  both  Copley  and  West,  was  perhaps  more  fortunate 
in  having  celebrated  characters  like  Washington  for  sitters 
than  in  his  art.  Technically  he  was  hard,  dry,  and  mechanical, 
as  were  also  Matthew  Pratt  (1734-1805),  Robert  Pine  (1742- 
1790),  Joseph  Wright  (1756-1793),  Ralph  Earle  (1751-1801), 


AMERICAN  PAINTING  321 

Robert  Fulton  (1 765-181 5)  —  all  of  them  primitives  in  art  and 
limited  in  skill.  Trumbull  (1 756-1843)  preserved  on  canvas 
the  Revolutionary  history  of  America  and,  all  told,  did  it 
very  well.  Some  of  his  compositions,  portraits,  and  miniature 
heads  in  the  Yale  Art  School  at  New  Haven  are  drawn  and 
painted  in  a  masterful  manner  and  are  as  valuable  for  their 
art  as  for  the  incidents  which  they  portray.  They  are  a  sur- 
prise and  a  delight  for  their  skill  and  ease  of  handling. 

Gilbert  Stuart  (1 755-1828)  was  the  best  portrait-painter  of 
all  the  early  men,  and  his  work  holds  very  high  rank  even  with 
the  schools  of  to-day.  He  was  one  of  the  first  in  American 
art-history  to  show  skilful  accuracy  of  the  brush,  a  good  knowl- 
edge of  color,  and  some  artistic  sense  of  dignity  and  carriage 
in  the  sitter.  He  was  not  always  a  good  draftsman,  and  he 
had  a  manner  of  laying  on  pure  colors  without  blending  them 
that  sometimes  produced  sharpness  in  modelling;  but  as  a 
general  rule  he  painted  a  portrait  with  force  and  with  truth. 
He  was  a  pupil  of  Alexander,  a  Scotchman,  and  afterward 
an  assistant  to  West.  He  settled  in  Boston,  and  during  his 
life  painted  most  of  the  great  men  of  his  time,  including 
Washington. 

Vanderlyn  (1 776-1852)  met  with  adversity  all  his  life  long, 
and  perhaps  never  expressed  himself  fully.  He  was  a  pupil 
of  Stuart,  studied  in  Paris  and  Italy,  and  his  associations  with 
Aaron  Burr  made  him  quite  as  famous  as  his  pictures.  His 
Ariadne,  now  in  the  Pennsylvania  Academy,  attracted  notice 
in  his  day  for  its  good  drawing  of  the  nude,  and  his  portraits 
were  something  more  than  respectable.  Washington  Allston 
(1 779-1843)  was  a  painter  whom  literary  New  England  at 
one  time  ranked  high,  but  he  hardly  deserved  high  position. 
Intellectually  he  was  a  man  of  lofty  and  poetic  aspirations, 
but  he  never  had  the  painter's  sense  or  the  painter's  skill.  He 
was  an  aspiration  rather  than  a  consummation.  He  cherished 
notions  about  ideals,  dealt  in  imaginative  allegories,  and  failed 


322  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

to  observe  the  pictorial  character  of  the  world  about  him. 
As  a  result  of  this,  and  poor  artistic  training,  his  art  had  too 
little  basis  in  nature  and  too  little  skill  in  representation. 
Rembrandt  Peale  (i  787-1860),  like  his  father,  was  a  painter  of 


FIG.    I45.  —  HARDING.      JOHN   RANDOLPH   OF   ROANOKE.      CORCORAN 
GALLERY,    WASHINGTON. 

Washington  portraits  of  rather  mediocre  quality.  Waldo 
(1 783-1861),  who  worked  in  collaboration  with  Jewett  (1795- 
1873),  was  little  better,  but  S.  F.  B.  Morse  (1791-1872)  gave 
distinct  promise  in  portraiture  and  really  did  some  exceptional 
work  such  as  the  La  Fayette  in  the  New  York  City  Hall. 


AMERICAN  PAINTING 


3*3 


Jarvis  (1780-1834)  and  Sully  (1783-1872)  were  both  British 
born,  but  their  work  belongs  here  in  America,  where  most  of 
their  days  were  spent.  Sully  could  paint  a  very  good  portrait 
occasionally,  though  he  always  inclined  toward  the  weak  and 
the  sentimental,  especially  in  his  portraits  of  women.  In 
this  he  was  influenced,  to  his  injury  perhaps,  by  the  work  of 
Sir  Thomas  Lawrence.  Leslie  (1 794-1859)  and  Newton 
(1 795-1835)  were  Americans,  but,  like  West  and  Copley,  they 
belong  in  their  art  more  to  England  than  to  America.  In  all 
the  early  American  painting  the  British  influence  may  be 
traced  with  sometimes  an  inclination  to  follow  Italy  in  large 
compositions. 

THE  MIDDLE  PERIOD  in  American  art  dates  from  1825 
to  about  1878.  During  that  time,  something  distinctly  Amer- 
ican began  to  appear  in  the  landscape  work  of  Doughty  (1793- 
1856)  and  Thomas  Cole  (1801-1848).  Both  men  were  sub- 
stantially self-taught,  though  Cole  received  some  instruction 
from  a  portrait  painter  named  Stein.  Cole  during  his  life 
was  famous  for  his  Hudson  River  landscapes,  and  for  two  series 
of  pictures  called  The  Voyage  of  Life  and  The  Course  of  Empire. 
The  latter  were  really  epic  poems  upon  canvas,  done  with  much 
blare  of  color  and  literary  explanation  in  the  title.  His  chief 
work  was  in  pure  landscape,  which  he  pictured  with  consider- 
able accuracy  in  drawing,  though  it  was  faulty  in  lighting  and 
gaudy  in  coloring.  Brilliant  autumn  scenes  were  his  favorite 
subjects.  His  work  had  the  merit  of  originality  and,  more- 
over, it  must  be  remembered  that  Cole  was  one  of  the  beginners 
in  American  landscape  art.  Durand  (1 796-1 886)  was  an 
engraver  until  1835,  when  he  began  painting  portraits,  and 
afterward  developed  landscape  with  considerable  power.  He 
was  usually  simple  in  subject  and  realistic  in  treatment,  with 
not  so  much  insistence  upon  brilliant  color  as  some  of  his 
contemporaries.  Some  of  his  portraits  are  of  exceptional 
excellence.     Kensett  (1818-1872)  was  a  follower  in  landscape 


324 


HISTORY   ()!•    IWIXTINd 


of  the  so-called  Hudson  River  School  of  Cole  and  others,  though 
he  studied  seven  years  in  Europe.  His  color  was  rather  warm, 
his  air  hazy,  and  the  general  effect  of  his  landscape  that  of  a 


FIG.    I46.  —  JARVIS.      HENRY   CLAY.      CITY   HALL,   NEW   YORK. 

dreamy  autumn  day  with  poetic  suggestions.  F.  E.  Church 
(1826-1900)  was  a  pupil  of  Cole,  and  followed  him  in  seek- 
ing the  grand  in  mountain  scenery.  With  Church  should 
be  mentioned  a  number  of  artists  —  Casilear  (1811-1893), 
Hubbard    (1S17-1888),   Hill   (1829-),   Bierstadt   (1830-1902), 


AMERICAN  PAINTING 


325 


Thomas  Moran  (183  7-)  —  who  have  achieved  reputation  by 
canvases  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  and  other  novelties  of  Amer- 
ican scenery.  Some  other  painters  of  smaller  canvases  belong 
in  point  of  time,  and  also  in  spirit,  with  the  Hudson  River 
landscapists  —  painters,  too,  of  considerable  merit,  as  David 
Johnson  (1827-1908),  Bristol  (1826-),  Sandford  Gifford  (1823- 
1880),  McEntee  (1828-1801),  Whittredge  (1820-1910),  the 
last  two  very  good  portrayers  of  autumn  scenes;  and  Bradford 
(1830-1892)  and  W.  T.  Richards  (1833-1905),  marine-painters. 

PORTRAIT,  HISTORY,  AND  GENRE-PAINTERS:  Contem- 
porary with  the  early  landscapists  were  a  number  of 
figure-painters,  most  of  them  self-taught,  or  taught  badly 
by  foreign  or  native  artists,  and  yet  men  who  produced  cred- 
itable work.  Chester  Harding  (1 792-1866)  was  one  of  the 
early  portrait-painters  of  this  century  who  achieved  enough 
celebrity  in  Boston  to  be  the  subject  of  what  was  called  "the 
Harding  craze."  Some  of  his  portraits  in  the  Corcoran  Gal- 
lery are  excellent.  With  him  came  Francis  Alexander  (1800- 
1881)  who  also  had  something  of  a  vogue  as  a  portraitist  and 
John  Neagle  (1 799-1865)  who  deserved  more  of  a  vogue  than 
he  had  for  he  painted  some  very  forceful  portraiture.  Elliott 
(181 2-1868)  was  a  pupil  of  Trumbull,  and  a  man  of  consider- 
able reputation,  as  was  also  Inman  (1801-1846),  a  portrait 
and  genre-painter  with  a  smooth,  detailed  brush.  Ingham 
(1796-1863),  Page  (1811-1885),  Gray  (1819-1877),  Baker 
(1821-1880),  Huntington  (1816-1906),  the  third  President  of 
the  Academy  of  Design;  Healy  (1808-1894),  a  portrait-painter 
of  more  than  average  excellence;  Mount  (1 807-1 868),  one  of 
the  earliest  of  American  genre-painters,  were  all  men  of  note 
in  this  middle  period. 

Leutze  (1816-1868)  was  a  German  by  birth  but  an  American 
by  adoption,  who  painted  many  large  historical  scenes  of  the 
American  Revolution,  such  as  Washington  Crossing  the  Del- 
aware, besides  many  scenes   taken  from  European  history. 


326 


HISTORY    OF    TAINTING 


He  was  a  pupil  of  Lessing  at  Dusseldorf,  and  had  something 
to  do  with  Introducing  Dusseldorf  methods  into  America. 
He  was  a  painter  of  ability,  if  at  times  hot  in  color  and  dry  in 
handling.  Occasionally  he  did  a  fine  portrait,  like  the  Seward 
in  the  Union  League  Club,  New  York. 

During  this  period,  in  addition  to  the  influence  of  Dussel- 
dorf and  Rome  upon  American  art,  there  came  the  influence 

of  French  art  with  Hicks 
(1823-1890)  and  Hunt 
(1824-1879),  both  of 
them  pupils  of  Couture 
at  Paris,  and  Hunt  also 
of  Millet  at  Barbizon. 
Hunt  was  the  real  intro- 
ducer of  Millet  and  the 
Barbizon  ^  Fontainebleau 
artists  to  the  American 
people.  In  1855  he  estab- 
lished himself  at  Boston, 
had  a  large  number  of 
pupils,  and  met  with  great 
success  as  a  teacher.  He 
was  a  painter  of  ability, 
but  perhaps  his  greatest 


FIG.    147. 


DURAND.      LANDSCAPE.      NEW   YORK 
PUBLIC    LIBRARY. 


influence  was  as  a  teacher 
and  an  instructor  in  what 
was  good  art  as  distinguished  from  what  was  false  and  mere- 
tricious. He  certainly  was  among  the  first  in  America  to 
teach  catholicity  of  taste,  truth  and  sincerity  in  art,  and  art 
in  the  painter  rather  than  in  the  subject.  Contemporary 
with  Hunt  lived  George  Fuller  (1822-1884),  a  unique  man 
in  American  painting  for  the  sentiment  he  conveyed  in  his 
pictures  by  means  of  color  and  atmosphere.  Though  never 
proficient  in  the  grammar  of  art  he  managed  by  blendings 


AMERICAN  PAINTING  327 

of  color  and  tonal  relations  to  suggest  certain  sentiments 
regarding  light  and  air  that  have  been  rightly  esteemed 
poetic. 

THE  THIRD  PERIOD  in  American  painting  began  immedi- 
ately after  the  Centennial  Exhibition  at  Philadelphia  in  1876. 
Undoubtedly  the  display  of  art,  both  foreign  and  domestic, 
at  that  time,  together  with  the  national  prosperity  and  great 
growth  of  the  United  States,  had  much  to  do  with  stimulating 
activity  in  painting.  Many  young  men  at  the  beginning  of 
this  period  went  to  Europe  to  study  in  the  studios  at  Munich, 
and  later  on  at  Paris.  Before  1880  some  of  them  had  returned 
to  the  United  States,  bringing  with  them  knowledge  of  the 
technical  side  of  art,  which  they  immediately  began  to  give  out 
to  many  pupils.  Gradually  the  influence  of  the  young  men 
from  Munich  and  Paris  spread.  The  Art  Students'  League, 
founded  in  1875,  was  incorporated  in  1878,  and  the  Society 
of  American  Artists  was  established  in  the  same  year. 
Societies  and  painters  began  to  spring  up  all  over  the  country, 
and  as  a  result  there  is  in  the  United  States  to-day  an  artist 
body  technically  as  well  trained  and  in  spirit  as  progressive 
as  in  almost  any  country  of  Europe.  The  late  influence  shown 
in  painting  has  been  largely  a  French  influence,  and  the  Amer- 
ican artists  have  been  accused  from  time  to  time  of  echoing 
French  methods.  The  accusation  is  true  in  part.  Paris  is 
the  centre  of  all  art-teaching  to-day,  and  the  Americans,  in 
common  with  the  Europeans,  accept  French  methods,  not 
because  they  are  French,  but  because  they  are  the  best  extant. 
In  subjects  and  motives,  however,  the  American  school  is  as 
original  as  any  school  can  be  in  this  cosmopolitan  age. 

PORTRAIT,  FIGURE,  AND  GENRE-PAINTERS  (1878-1915): 
It  must  not  be  inferred  that  the  painters  prominent  in 
American  art  after  1876  were  all  young  men  schooled  after 
that  date.  On  the  contrary,  some  of  the  best  of  them 
were  men  past  middle  life  who  began  painting  long  before 


328 


HISTORY   OF    PAINTING 


1876,  and  by  dint  of  observation  and  prolonged  study  contin- 
ued with  the  modern  spirit.  For  example,  Winslow  Homer 
(1S36-1910)  was  one  of  the  strongest  and  most  original  of  all 
the  American  artists,  a  man  who  never  had  the  advantage  of 
the  highest  technical  training,  yet  possessed  a  feeling  for  color, 
a  dash  and  verve  in  execution,  an  originality  in  subject,  and 
an  individuality  of  conception  that  are  unsurpassed.  As  a 
painter  of  the  sea  he  has  no  superior  in  American  art.     East- 


no.    148.  —  HOMER.      MARINE.      METROPOLITAN  MUSEUM,    NEW   YORK. 

man  Johnson  (1 824-1906)  was  one  of  the  older  portrait  and 
figure-painters  who  stood  among  the  younger  generations 
without  jostling,  because  he  had  in  measure  kept  himself  in- 
formed with  modern  thought  and  method.  He  was  a  good, 
conservative  painter,  possessed  of  taste,  judgment,  and  tech- 
nical ability.  Elihu  Vedder  (1836-)  is  more  of  a  draughts- 
man than  a  brushman.  His  color-sense  is  not  acute  nor  his 
handling  free,  but  he  has  an  imagination  which,  if  somewhat 
more  literary  than  pictorial,  is  nevertheless  very  effective. 
He  has  lived  in  Rome  for  many  years.     John  La  Farge  (1835- 


AMERICAN  PAINTING  329 

1910)  and  Albert  Ryder  (1847-)  are  both  colorists,  and  La 
Farge  in  artistic  feeling  was  a  man  of  much  power.  Almost 
all  of  his  pictures  have  fine  decorative  quality  in  line  and  color 
and  are  thoroughly  pictorial.  His  Ascension  in  the  New  York 
church  of  that  name  still  remains  one  of  the  best  of  our  mural 
decorations  and  his  work  in  stained  glass  bears  witness  to  his 
fine  sense  of  color.  In  point  of  time  Whistler  belongs  with 
these  men  although  he  finds  mention  in  a  later  paragraph, 
and  some  other  painters  of  foreign  extraction  or  affinity, 
such  as  E.  H.  May  (1824-1887)  and  C.  C.  Coleman  (1840-), 
should  be  mentioned  just  here. 

The  "young  men,"  so-called,  though  some  of  them  are  now 
past  middle  life,  are  perhaps  more  facile  in  brushwork  and 
better  trained  draftsmen  than  those  we  have  just  mentioned. 
They  have  cultivated  vivacity  of  style  and  cleverness  in 
statement,  frequently  at  the  expense  of  the  larger  qualities  of 
art.  Sargent  (1856-)  is,  perhaps,  the  most  considerable  por- 
trait-painter now  living,  a  man  of  unbounded  resources  tech- 
nically and  fine  natural  abilities.  He  is  draftsman,  colorist, 
brushman  —  in  fact,  almost  everything  in  art  that  can  be 
cultivated.  His  taste  is  sometimes  questioned,  and  he  is 
occasionally  given  to  dashing  effects  that  are  more  clever  than 
permanent;  but  that  he  is  a  master  in  portraiture  has  already 
been  abundantly  demonstrated.  In  recent  years  his  drawings 
of  Venice  and  his  landscapes  have  shown  not  only  amazing 
adroitness  but  a  remarkable  point  of  view.  His  eye  is  just 
as  wonderful  as  his  hand.  Chase  (1840-)  is  also  an  exception- 
ally good  portrait-painter,  and  he  handles  the  genre  subject 
and  still-life  with  brilliant  color  and  a  swift,  sure  brush.  In 
brush-work  he  is  exceedingly  clever,  and  is  an  excellent  tech- 
nician in  almost  every  respect.  Not  always  profound  in 
matter  he  generally  manages  to  be  entertaining  in  method. 
Moreover,  as  a  teacher  he  has  had  a  wide  influence  upon 
American  art  counting,  as  he  does,  his  pupils  by  the  hundreds. 


330  HISTORY   OF   PAINTING 

Blum  |  1 857-1903)  was,  a  few  years  ago,  well  known  to  magazine 
readers  through  many  black-and- white  illustrations.  He  was 
also  a  painter  of  genre  subjects  taken  from  many  lands,  and 
handled  with  brilliancy  and  force.  Dewing  (1851-)  is  a  painter 
with  a  refined  sense  not  only  in  form  but  in  color.  His  pictures 
are  usually  small,  but  exquisite  in  delicacy  and  decorative 
charm.  Thayer  (1849-)  is  fond  of  large  canvases,  a  man  of 
earnestness,  sincerity,  and  imagination,  but  not  a  clean-cut 
draftsman,    not   a   profound   colorist,    and    a   rather   heavy 


FIG.    I49.  —  1NNESS.      LANDSCAPE. 

brushman.  He  has,  however,  something  to  say,  and  in  a 
large  sense  is  an  artist  of  uncommon  ability.  Kenyon  Cox 
(1856-)  is  a  draftsman,  with  a  liking  for  line  and  formal 
composition,  after  the  manner  of  the  Venetians,  and  these  he 
has  recently  employed  to  good  purpose  in  many  large  mural 
decorations.  He  is  a  writer  on  art  as  well  as  a  painter  and 
has  marked  ability  in  both  fields. 

The  number  of  good  portrait-painters  at  present  working 
in  America  is  very  large,  and  mention  can  be  made  of  but  a 
few  in  addition  to  those  already  spoken  of.     Alexander,  Beck- 


AMERICAN  PAINTING  331 

with,  Lockwood,  Benson,  Wiles,  Smedley,  Cecilia  Beaux, 
Vinton,  Eakins,  Collins,  Weir,  have  all  had  the  advantage  of 
foreign  study  and  are  very  well  equipped  technically.  Each 
one  has  his  point  of  view  and  interprets  in  his  own  way.  In 
figure  and  gmre-painting  the  list  of  really  good  painters  could 
be  drawn  out  almost  indefinitely,  and  again  mention  must 
be  confined  to  a  few  only,  —  Duveneck,  Eaton,  De  Camp, 
Shirlaw,  Brush,  Hassam,  Metcalf,  Henri,  Tarbell,  Kendall. 
In  recent  years  the  building  of  municipal,  state,  and  national 
buildings  and  the  growth  of  educational  institutions  has  called 
for  the  services  of  mural  painters.  The  want  has  been  well 
supplied  by  a  number  of  painters,  the  most  prominent  of  whom 
are  Blashfield,  Simmons,  Mowbray,  Reid,  Millet,  Low,  C.  Y. 
Turner.  This  field  has  taken  on  large  proportions  and  offers 
rare  opportunity  for  new  development. 

Most  of  the  men  whose  names  are  given  above  are  resident 
in  America;  but,  in  addition,  there  is  a  large  contingent  of 
men,  American  born  but  resident  abroad,  who  can  hardly 
be  claimed  by  the  American  school,  and  yet  belong  to  it 
as  much  as  to  any  school.  They  are  cosmopolitan  in  their 
art,  and  reside  in  Paris,  Munich,  London,  or  elsewhere,  as  the 
spirit  moves  them.  Sargent,  the  portrait-painter,  belongs  to 
this  group,  as  did  also  Whistler  (1 834-1 903),  one  of  the  most 
artistic  of  all  the  moderns.  Whistler,  though  long  resident 
in  London  and  Paris,  owed  allegiance  to  no  school,  and  such 
art  as  he  produced  was  peculiarly  his  own,  save  a  leaven  of 
influences  from  Courbet,  Velasquez,  and  the  Japanese.  His 
art  is  the  perfection  of  delicacy,  both  in  color  and  in  line.  It 
has  the  pictorial  charm  of  mystery  and  suggestiveness,  and 
the  technical  effect  of  light,  air,  and  space.  There  is  nothing 
better  produced  in  modern  painting,  but  much  very  like  it  is 
produced  by  followers  and  imitators.  No  painter  of  recent 
years  has  had  so  much  influence  on  contemporary  painting  as 
Whistler.     E.  A.  Abbey  (1852-1911),  as  well  known  by  his 


33* 


HISTORY   OF   PAINTING 


pen-and-ink  work  as  by  his  paintings,  J.  J.  Shannon  and 
McLure  Hamilton  the  portrait  painters,  with  Mark  Fisher, 
are  American  born  but  have  lived  long  in  London  and  are 
identified  with  English  art. 

In   Paris   and   elsewhere    there    are   many  American-born 
painters,  who  again  belong  with  the  French  school  as  much 

as  the  American.  Bridg- 
man  is  an  example,  and 
Dannat,  Alexander  Harri- 
son, Hitchcock,  McEwen, 
Melchers,  Pearce,  Julius 
Stewart,  Julian  Story, 
Mary  Cassatt,  Weeks 
(1840-1903),  Walter  Gay, 
have  nothing  distinctly 
American  about  their  art. 
It  is  semi-cosmopolitan 
with  a  leaning  toward 
French  methods. 

LANDSCAPE      AND 

/        jftf  *   JP5fl    9     MARINE      PAINTERS 

g£  >'GWffl  (1878 1915):   In  the  de- 

partment  of  landscape 
painting  America  has  had 
since  1825  something  dis- 
tinctly national,  and  has 
at  this  day.  In  recent  years  the  impressionist  plcin-air  school 
of  France  has  influenced  many  painters,  and  the  prismatic  land- 
scape is  quite  as  frequently  seen  in  American  exhibitions  as  in 
the  Paris  Salons.  Besides  this,  and  still  more  recently,  the  in- 
fluence of  Whistler's  work  has  shown  in  landscape  as  well  as 
in  portrait  and  figure  piece.  But  American  landscape  art 
rather  dates  ahead  of  French  impressionism  or  Whistlerism. 
The  strongest  landscapist  of  our  times,  George  Inness  (1825- 


FIG.    150.  —  SARGENT.      MRS.    IAN   HAMILTON. 


AMERICAN  PAINTING 


333 


1904),  was  never  seriously  influenced  by  foreign  example. 
His  style  underwent  many  changes,  yet  always  remained  dis- 
tinctly individual.  He  was  always  an  experimenter  and  an 
uneven  painter,  at  times  doing  work  of  wonderful  force,  and 


FIG.    ISI.  —  ALEXANDER.      PORTRAIT   OF   WHITMAN. 
POLITAN   MUSEUM,    NEW   YORK. 


METRO- 


then  again  falling  into  weakness.  The  solidity  of  nature, 
the  mass  and  bulk  of  landscape,  he  has  shown  with  a  power 
second  to  none.  He  was  fond  of  the  sentiment  of  nature's 
light,  air,  and  color,  and  put  it  forth  more  in  his  later  than 
in  his  earlier  canvases.  Among  his  contemporaries  A.  H. 
Wyant  (1836-1892)  was  one  of  the  best  and  strongest  of  the 


334 


HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 


American  landscape  painters.  He  descended  from  the  old 
Hudson  River  School,  but  outgrew  it,  went  beyond  it,  became 
one  of  the  notable  men  in  American   art.      Swain  Gififord 

(1840-1905),  Samuel 
Colman,  Gay,  Shurtleff 
( 1 838-1 91 5)  have  all  done 
excellent  wrork  uninflu- 
enced by  foreign  schools 
of  to-day.  Homer  Mar- 
tin's (1836-1897)  land- 
scapes, from  their  breadth 
of  treatment,  are  popu- 
larly considered  rather 
indifferent  work,  but  in 
reality  they  are  excellent 
in  color  and  poetic  feeling. 
The  "young  men" 
again,  in  landscape  as  in 
the  figure,  are  working 
in  the  modern  spirit, 
though  in  substance  they 
are  based  on  the  tra- 
ditions of  the  older  Am- 
erican landscape  school. 
There  has  been  much 
achievement  with  such 
landscapists  as  Tryon, 
Piatt,  Murphy,  Dearth, 
Crane,  Dewey,  Coffin, 
Horatio  Walker,  Metcalf, 
Palmer,  Blakelock,  Rang- 
er, Lawson,  Birge  Harrison,  Ben  Foster,  Octhman,  W.  L. 
Lathrop,  Redfield.  Among  those  who  favor  the  so-called  im- 
pressionistic view  are  Twachtman  (1853-1902), Robinson  (1852- 


FIG.    152.  —  HENRI.      YOUNG    WOMAN   IN    BLACK. 


AMERICAN  PAINTING  335 

1896),  Weir,  and  Hassam,  landscape-painters  of  undeniable 
power.  In  marines  Gedney  Bunce  has  portrayed  many  Vene- 
tian lagoon  scenes  of  charming  color-tone,  Winslow  Homer  has 
given  the  power  of  the  sea  as  no  one  else,  and  other  painters 
such  as  Maynard,  Kost,  Snell,  Rehn,  Butler,  Chapman, 
Woodberry,  Dougherty,  Emil  Carlsen,  Waugh,  have  made 
excellent  records  of  its  various  appearances. 

It  is  impossible  to  make  note  here  of  the  work  of  the  newest 
"arrivals"  in  painting  or  to  keep  pace  with  the  movements 
that  so  swiftly  come  and  go:  but  the  names  may  be  mentioned 
of  some  of  the  moderns  who  have  attracted  recent  attention 
—  Jonas  Lie,  Arthur  B.  Davies,  C.  C.  Cooper,  George  B.  Luks, 
John  Sloan,  William  Glackens,  Jerome  Myers,  Everett  Shinn, 
George  Bellows,  Gardner  Symons,  W.  Elmer  Schofield,  Jean 
McLane. 

EXTANT  WORKS:  The  works  of  the  early  American  painters 
are  to  be  seen  principally  in  the  Boston  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  the 
Athenaeum,  Mass.  Hist.  Soc,  Harvard  College,  Redwood  Library, 
Newport,  Metropolitan  Mus.,  New  York  and  Hist.  Soc.  Libraries, 
the  City  Hall,  Century  Club,  Chamber  of  Commerce,  National  Acad, 
of  Design,  N.  Y.  In  New  Haven,  at  Yale  School  of  Fine  Arts,  in 
Philadelphia  at  Penna.  Acad,  of  Fine  Arts,  in  Rochester  Powers's 
Art.  Gal.,  in  Washington  Corcoran  Gal.  and  the  Capitol. 

The  works  of  the  living  men  are  seen  in  the  exhibitions  held  from 
year  to  year  at  the  Academy  of  Design,  N.Y.,  in  Philadelphia, 
Chicago,  Boston,  Pittsburgh,  St.  Louis,  and  elsewhere  throughout  the 
country.  Some  of  their  works  belong  to  permanent  institutions  like 
the  Metropolitan  Mus.,  the  Pennsylvania  Acad.,  the  Art  Institute 
of  Chicago,  but  there  is  no  public  collection  of  pictures  that  repre- 
sents American  Art  as  a  whole,  with  the  possible  exception  of  the 
Corcoran  Gallery  at  Washington  and  the  Smithsonian  Institution, 
where  recent  gifts  by  Mr.  Freer  and  Mr.  Evans  have  made  an  ex- 
cellent beginning. 


POSTSCRIPT 

RECENT   PAINTING   IN  AUSTRIA-HUNGARY,   RUSSIA 

AND   SCANDINAVIA 

Books  Recommended:  Boyesen,  Norwegian  Painters  (in 
Scribner's,  Dee.,  1892);  Bulgakov,  Our  [Russian]  Artists; 
Devienne,  Les  Artistes  die  Nord  au  Salon  de  1874;  Holme, 
Art  Revival  in  Austria;  Muther,  History  of  Modem  Painting; 
Van  Dyke,  Painting  at  the  Fair  (Century  Magazine,  July, 
iSqj);  Weitemeyer,  Danemark,  Geschiehte  und  Beschrcibung. 
The  books  on  these  scattering  schools  are  few  and  in  languages 
not  readable  by  the  average  person.  The  main  information 
must  be  derived  from  journals  like  the  Gazette  des  Beaux  Arts 
or  local  publications. 

PAINTING  EAST  AND  WEST:  In  this  brief  history  of 
painting  it  has  been  necessary  to  omit  some  countries  and 
some  painters  that  have  not  seemed  to  be  directly  connected 
with  the  progress  or  development  of  painting  in  the  western 
world.  The  arts  of  India,  Persia,  China,  and  Japan,  while 
well  worthy  of  careful  chronicling,  are  somewhat  removed 
from  the  arts  of  the  other  nations  and  from  our  study.  Portu- 
gal has  had  some  history  in  the  art  of  painting,  but  it  is  slight 
and  so  bound  up  with  Spanish  and  Flemish  influences  that 
its  men  do  not  stand  out  as  a  distinct  school.  This  is  true 
in  measure  of  pictorial  art  in  the  Balkan  States  or  in  the 
western  republics  of  Mexico,  Central  America,  and  South 
America.  Modern  painting  in  these  countries  has  followed 
European  example  and  has  not  yet  reached  a  point  where  it 
can  be  said  to  represent  a  people  or  to  hold  a  place  in  the 
history  of  art. 


POSTSCRIPT  337 

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY:  Even  when  we  consider  such  near- 
by countries  as  Austria  and  Hungary  the  relation  of  their  art 
to  the  rest  of  Europe  is  not  strongly  marked,  and  the  con- 
tinuity of  their  art  history  is  somewhat  lacking.  Austria,  in 
its  Germanic  part,  has  been  influenced  by  Germany  and  some 
of  its  painters  have  been  spoken  of  in  the  chapter  on  German 
art.  The  early  history  was  bound  up  with  German  art  and 
so  to  a  great  extent  is  the  modern  history.  After  1875  the 
predominant  influence  was  from  Makart  (1840-1884),  who  had 
great  success  in  Vienna  and  was  virtually  the  art-dictator  there 
for  some  years.  He  was  profuse  in  color  and  sometimes 
spotty  in  its  arrangement  but  he  drew  fairly  well  and  was 
fluent  with  the  brush.  His  art  was  somewhat  spectacular. 
Pettenkofen  (1821-1889)  was  also  a  leader  in  his  day  and 
pictured  modern  life  in  a  modern  spirit.  Hans  Canon  in 
Venetian  scenes,  Rudolf  Alt  in  architectural  sketches,  L.  K. 
Miiller,  a  painter  of  Cairo,  Emil  Schindler  in  landscape,  have 
all  attained  reputation.  In  1896  a  secessionist  movement 
against  the  society  of  artists  brought  out  some  new  men  and 
succeeded  in  introducing  the  latest  European  art  at  the  ex- 
hibitions. Identified  with  this  movement  were  Hermann, 
Gustave  Klint,  Engelhart,  Moll,  Konig,  Kollman,  Nowak, 
Ticky,  Otto  Friedrich,  and  others.  The  latest  of  the  moderns 
are  to  be  seen  at  the  Kiinstlerhaus  exhibitions.  They  are 
men  such  as  Rauchinger,  Schattenstein,  Epstein,  Larwin, 
Karlinsky,  Simony  —  most  of  them  Germanic  in  their 
origins  and  art.  The  modern  movement  of  impressionism 
is  at  Vienna  as  elsewhere. 

Bohemia  sent  out,  years  ago,  Gabriel  Max  (1S40-),  a 
painter  of  romantic  Christian  saints  and  martyrs  who  had 
considerable  success  abroad  as  in  his  own  land.  He  was  in 
Piloty's  school  and  lived  in  Munich  though  reared  in 
Prague.  Hans  Schwaiger  was  another  legend  painter  of 
Bohemia  of  considerable  fame  and  among  the  late  painters 


338  HISTORY  OF   PAINTING 

from  that  country  arc  Emil  Orlick,  Albert  Hynais,  Hudesek, 
Jansa. 

In  Hungary  the  best  of  the  last  century  men  was  Munkacsy 
( 1 846-1000),  a  painter  somewhat  sensational  as  regards  both 
his  subjects  and  his  methods.  He  was  a  reckless  user  of 
bitumen  but  a  very  clever  handler  of  the  brush.  Of  course 
his  influence  in  and  out  of  Hungary  has  been  large.  At  the 
present  time  Budapest  is  a  centre  of  art  with  a  large  museum, 
a  Kiinstlerhaus,  a  Royal  Society,  and  a  dissenting  secession 
party  as  elsewhere.  The  exhibitions  there  and  at  Vienna  have 
many  pictures  by  Hungarians  that  show  all  sorts  of  modern 
school  influences.  It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  attempt  the 
analysis  of  these  various  influences  at  the  present  time.  The 
names  of  some  of  the  more  modern  exhibitors  are  Rippl- 
Ronai,  Franz  Olgyay,  Zoltan  Csaktornay,  Karl  Kernstock, 
Johann  Vaszary,  Ferdinand  Katona,  Paul  Javor. 

RUSSIA:  Little  was  known  about  Russian  art  until  recent 
years,  though  doubtless  some  Byzantine  traditions  have  al- 
ways held  through  the  Greek  Church.  Modern  art  in  Russia 
began  with  the  last  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century  and 
was  at  first  more  of  a  moralizing  influence  than  an  aesthetic 
creation  or  technical  accomplishment.  Peroff  painted  the  serf, 
as  Vereschagin  the  soldier,  to  show  how  badly  they  were 
treated  politically  rather  than  how  well  they  looked  pictori- 
ally.  Neither  painter  was  expert  with  the  brush.  After 
1892  a  newer  group  of  men  came  on  with  modern  training 
and  technique.  But  the  historical  theme  was  retained  and 
Russian  painting  still  excited  admiration  or  pity  or  terror, 
by  its  harrowing  scenes.  Repin's  picture  of  Ivan  the  Cruel 
is  the  type.  Maliavine,  a  painter  of  peasants,  Vasnezov,  of 
historic  and  romantic  subjects,  Nesterov,  of  monks,  Makowski, 
of  Russian  life  in  its  barbaric  splendor,  are  the  successors  of 
Repin.  In  landscape  work  there  has  been  some  simpler  and 
better  work  from  Schischkin,  Vassiliev,  and  others.     At  the 


POSTSCRIPT  339 

present  time  there  are  many  painters  and  pictures  at 
Petrograd;  but  Russian  art  is  still  in  a  formative  state.  At 
Warsaw  in  Poland  there  is  claim  made  for  a  school  and  an 
art  of  its  own;  but  it  is  little  improvement  upon  that  of 
Petrograd.  Chelminski,  Gerson,  Gorski,  are  its  representa- 
tives. Finland  is  allied  to  Sweden  and  one  is  not  surprised 
to  find  there  modern  painting  far  advanced  with  men  like 
Edelfeldt,  Gallen,  and  Jaernefelt. 

DENMARK:  Pictorial  art  has  existed  in  Denmark  for  several 
centuries,  but  only  in  a  feeble  way.  Not  until  contemporary 
times  has  it  proved  of  importance  to  art  lovers.  During  the 
nineteenth  century  it  followed  the  course  of  painting  elsewhere. 
Classicism  was  personified  in  Eckersberg  (1822-1870)  and 
eclecticism  in  many  of  his  pupils.  There  was  a  period  of 
history  painting,  genre  painting,  native  story-telling  art; 
but  none  of  it  was  very  good  technically  though  sincere  enough 
in  spirit.  Karl  Bloch  (1 834-1 890)  and  Zahrtmann  (1843-) 
have  painted  history  as  Axel  Helsted  (1847-)  genre;  but 
Peter  Kroyer  (1851-)  is  the  best  known  name  in  Danish  paint- 
ing at  the  present  time.  That  may  be  because  he  is  a  master 
technician  and  was  trained  in  Paris  under  Bonnat  and  others. 
He  is  an  excellent  draftsman  and  painter  and  in  his  own  way, 
as  applied  to  the  people  and  scenes  of  his  own  country,  he  has 
shown  many  of  the  modern  methods  of  lighting,  plein-air,  and 
full  color.  Some  of  his  portraits  are  beyond  criticism  so  fine 
are  they.  Tuxen  (1853-)  has  done  many  official  portraits,  he, 
too,  having  received  instruction  in  Paris.  Johansen  (1851-), 
Irminger  (1850-),  Ring  (1854-),  Holsoe  (1866-),  are  able 
painters  of  Danish  life  in  town  and  city,  and  Pedersen  (1854-), 
Paulsen  (i860-),  Rohde  (1856-),  depict  the  Danish  landscape. 
Besides  Kroyer's  pictures  of  the  coast  and  fisher-folk  there  are 
sea  painters  like  Michael  Ancher  (1840-)  and  Locher  (1851-). 

The  modern  movements  in  Paris,  London,  or  Berlin  now 
quickly  find  reflection  in  Copenhagen  and  one  may  see  with 


340  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

contemporary  men  influences  springing  from  impressionism, 
symbolism,  or  Whistlerism.  They  modify  but  do  not  sway 
the  native  Danish  point  of  view.  The  recent  men  are  Ejnar 
Nielsen,  Hammershoj,  Frolich. 

SWEDEN:  Painting  in  Sweden  easily  leads  all  the  rest  in 
Scandinavia.  The  Paris  Exposition  of  1889  offered  a  great 
surprise  to  people  of  the  picture  world  so  strong  at  that  time 
was  the  showing  of  Swedish  painting.  The  art  there  shown 
was  based  on  Parisian  teaching  and  represented  the  modern 
men.  They  were  by  no  means  the  first  Swedish  painters. 
The  tradition  of  art  runs  further  back  in  Sweden  than  else- 
where in  Scandinavia  —  runs  back  in  fact  to  the  eighteenth 
century.  But  the  painting  of  those  early  days  was  not  im- 
pressive or  noteworthy.  The  vogue  of  classicism,  romanti- 
cism, and  pre-Raphaelitism  came  and  went  and  again  left  no 
noteworthy  work.  The  influence  of  Dusseldorf  produced  a 
group  of  Dusseldorf  painters  in  Stockholm  and  still  failed  to 
present  Sweden  or  the  Swedish  people.  The  upward  turn  in 
Swedish  art  was  begun  with  Salmson  (1843-),  Gegerfelt 
(1844-),  and  Hagborg  (1852-)  who  not  only  studied  in  Paris 
and  attained  some  technical  mastery  but  passed  on  the  teach- 
ing and  the  peasant  subject  to  others.  The  result  in  the  later 
generations  has  been  a  remarkable  group  of  painters  equipped 
with  cosmopolitan  technique  and  applying  it  with  much  in- 
dividuality as  well  as  brilliancy  to  Swedish  themes.  High  light 
and  color  has  been  accepted  but  not  exactly  in  an  impression- 
istic way.  There  is  no  dotting  of  colors  but  much  laying  on 
of  pure  pigments  with  the  flat  of  the  brush.  High  light  with 
them  does  not  seem  to  be  so  much  a  scientific  combination  of 
broken  colors  as  a  recorded  fact  of  the  north  country  where  the 
long  summer  days  produce  much  warmth  of  hue.  This  has  all 
been  well  demonstrated,  not  only  with  brilliancy  but  with 
truth  and  individuality,  in  the  works  of  the  landscapists 
Kreuger,   Nordstrom,  Prince  Eugen,  Axel  Wallander,  Wahl- 


POSTSCRIPT  341 

berg,  and  particularly  Thegerstrom  and  Olsen  in  water  views, 
Carl  Larsson  with  figures  in  landscape,  Bjorck  with  pictures  of 
cattle.  Not  only  truth  of  light  but  truth  of  character  in  an 
astonishing  degree  appears  in  the  animals  and  birds  of  Liljefors, 
perhaps  the  best  painter  in  this  department  now  living.  His 
sense  of  life  and  motion  are  most  compelling  and  convincing. 
Zorn  is  a  widely  known  name  among  the  modern  Swedes 
because  his  pictures  have  been  widely  exhibited.  He  is  a 
cosmopolitan  genius  in  both  point  of  view  and  technique, 
paints  all  sorts  of  subjects  with  all  sorts  of  light,  is  fond  of 
high  color,  is  facile,  skilful,  clever  with  the  brush  in  high 
degree.  The  most  modern  men  in  Sweden  rather  defy  classi- 
fication and  analysis,  as  in  Paris  or  London.  The  tendency 
of  modern  art  is  to  record  individuality,  peculiarity,  even 
eccentricity.  The  result  is  infinite  variety,  much  cleverness, 
and  occasionally  something  profound  and  lasting. 

NORWAY:  The  Norwegians  have  no  long  page  in  the  his- 
tory of  painting.  The  art  hardly  began  with  them  before  the 
nineteenth  century  and  its  best  manifestation  has  been 
with  the  painters  of  the  last  thirty  years.  The  early  begin- 
nings were  influenced  from  Dusseldorf  and  practically  speaking 
Tidemand  (1814-1876)  was  the  first  of  the  painters  of  his- 
torical subjects.  Hans  Dahl  came  after  him,  painting  a  peasant 
genre  in  the  German  style  but  coarser  in  technique.  Krog,  a 
realist  of  poverty,  hunger,  and  death,  a  somewhat  gruesome 
painter,  succeeded.  Since  Krog,  a  group  of  figure  and  genre 
painters  devoted  to  the  real  in  Norwegian  life  as  seen  in  plcin- 
air,  sharp  colors,  and  strong  lights  has  come  to  the  fore.  The 
chief  men  are  Jorgensen,  Kolstoe,  Wentzel. 

Landscape  painting  has  progressed  in  a  manner  similar  to 
figure  painting.  The  earlier  men  were  Hans  Gude,  Niels 
Miiller,  Ludwig  Munthe,  Adelsten  Normann,  Werenskiold. 
The  later  men  who  produced  work  during  the  eighties  and 
after  —  Eilif    Petersen,   Skredsvig,   Gerhard    Munthe,   Fritz 


342  HISTORY  OF  PAINTING 

Thaulow,  —  took  up  with  modern  ideas  of  light  and  high  color 
which  they  showed  with  much  effect  in  winter  scenes  of  cold, 
snow,  still  water,  brilliant  reflections,  silent  trees,  colorful  skies. 
The  present  Norwegian  contingent  has  become  more  learned 
and  expert  technically  than  its  predecessors,  and  the  younger 
men  are  now  given  to  elegances  of  the  brush  comparable  to 
their  contemporaries  in  Sweden.  The  tendency  is  toward 
cosmopolitanism  in  art  with  Paris  as  an  inspiration  and  Nor- 
way for  a  theme.  Some  of  the  notable  moderns  are  Strom, 
Hennig,  Hjerlow,  Stenerson. 


INDEX 


Abbey,  Edwin  A.,  331. 

Aelst,  Willem  Van,  272. 

Aertsen,  P.,  232. 

Aetion,  36. 

Agatharchus,  33. 

Aime-Morot,  Nicolas,  198. 

Albani,  Francesco,  146. 

Albertinelli,  Mariotto,  106. 

Aldegrever,  Heinrich,  284. 

Alemannus,  Johannes,  95. 

Alexander,  F.,  325. 

Alexander,  J.  W.,  330. 

Aligny,  Claude  Francois,  174. 

Allegri,  Pomponio,  126. 

Allori,  Cristofano,  146. 

Allston,  Washington,  321. 

Alma-Tadema,  Laurenz,  249. 

Alt,  R.,  337. 

Altdorfer,  Albrecht,  284. 

Altichieri,  90. 

Alvarez,  Don  Luis,  219. 

Aman-Jean,  E.,  195. 

Ambrogio  da  Predis,  119. 

Amico  di  Sandro,  78. 

Ancher,  339. 

Andrea  da  Firenze,  62. 

Angelico,  Fra  Giovanni,  66,  67,  68. 

Anglada,  219. 

Anselmi,  Michelangelo,  126. 

Antiochus  Gabinius,  42. 

Antonello  da  Messina,  96. 

Antonio  Veneziano,  62. 

Apelles,  36. 


Apollodorus,  33,  34. 
Apt,  Ulrich,  286. 
Aranda,  Luis  Jiminez,  219. 
Aranzi,  Jac,  90. 
Aristides,  35. 
Artz,  D.  A.  C,  273. 
Aubert,  Ernest  Jean,  181. 

Bacchiacca,  108. 

Backer,  Jacob,  260. 

Backhuisen,  Ludolf,  271. 

Bacon,  298. 

Badile,  Antonio,  140. 

Baena,  Alfonso  de,  213. 

Bagnacavallo,  Bartolommeo  Ramen- 

ghi,  122. 
Baker,  George  A.,  325. 
Baldovinetti,  Alessio,  76. 
Baldung,  Hans,  284. 
Balten,  P.,  234. 
Barbari,  Jac.  de',  97. 
Bargue,  Charles,  19S. 
Barmejo,  Bart.,  213. 
Barna,  65. 

Baroccio,  Federigo,  144. 
Bartels,  293. 

Bartoli  di  Maestro  Fredi,  65. 
Bartolo,  Domenico  di,  66. 
Bartolo,  Taddeo  di,  65. 
Bartolommeo,     Fra     (Baccio    della 

Porta),  106. 
Bartolommeo  Veneto,  99. 
Basaiti,  Marco,  101. 


344 


INDEX 


Bassano,  Francesco,  137. 

Bassano,  Jacopo,  137. 

Bassano,  Leandro,  137. 

Bastert,  N.,  274. 

Bastiani,  Lazzaro,  98. 

Bastien-Lepage,  Jules,  196. 

Baudry,  Paul,  192,  193. 

Baur,  274. 

Beaux,  Cecilia,  331. 

Beccafumi,  Domenico,  121. 

Becerra,  Gaspar,  209. 

Beckwith,  J.  Carroll,  330. 

Beechey,  Sir  William,  301. 

Beers,  Jan  van,  249. 

Beham,  Barthel,  284. 

Beham,  Sebald,  284. 

Bcllechose,  Henri,  155. 

Bellini,  Gentile,  98. 

Bellini,  Giovanni,  99. 

Bellini,  Jacopo,  98. 

Bellotto,  150. 

Bellows,  George,  334. 

Benjamin-Constant,    Jean    Joseph, 

195- 
Benson,  Ambrosius,  229. 

Benson,  Prank  W.,  331.- 

Benvenuto  di  Giovanni,  66. 

Beraud,  Jean,  20:. 

Ben  hem,  Claas  Pietersz,  270. 

Berne- Bellecour,    Etienne    Prosper, 

198. 

Berrettini,  Pietro  (il  Cortona),  146. 

Berruguete,  Alonzo,  208. 

Berruguete,  Pedro,  208. 

Bertin,  Jean  Victor,  174. 

Besnard,  Paul  Albert,  201. 

Bettes,  J.,  207. 

Beu<  kelaer,  232. 

Bianchi-Ferrari,  84. 

Bierstadt,  Albert,  324. 

Bink,  Jakob,  284. 


Bissolo,  Pier  Francesco   101. 
Bjorck,  O.,  341. 
Blackburn,  319. 
Blake,  William,  303. 
Blakelock,  334. 
Blanche,  Jacques,  195. 
Blashficld,  Edwin  H.,  331. 
Bles,  H.  met  de,  231. 
Bloch,  339. 
Blommers,  B.  J.,  273. 
Blum,  Robert,  330. 
Bocklin,  Arnold,  294. 
Bol,  Ferdinand,  260. 
Boldini,  Giuseppe,  152. 
Boltraffio,  Giovanni  Antonio,  119. 
Bonfigli,  Benedetto,  81. 
Bonheur,  Auguste,  189. 
Bonheur,  Rosa,  188,  1S9. 
Bonifazio  Pitati,  137. 
Bonington,  Richard  Parkes,  309. 
Bonnat,  Leon,  194. 
Bonsignori,  Francesco,  91. 
Bonvin,  Francois,  198. 
Borassa,  Luis,  207. 
Bordone,  Paris,  137. 
Borgognonc,  Ambrogio,  86, 
Bosboom,  J.,  273. 
Bosch,  Jerome,  232. 
Both,  Jan,  270. 
Botticelli,  Sandro,  77,  78. 
Botticini,  Fran.,  78. 
Boucher,  Francois,  164. 
Boudin,  Eugene,  203. 
Bouguereau,  W.  Adolphe,  192. 
Boulangcr,  Louis,  178. 
Boulenger,  Hippolyte,  249. 
Bourdichon,  Jean,  156. 
Bourdon,  Scbastien,  161. 
Bouts,  Albert,  227. 
Bouts,  Thierry,  227. 
Bradford,  William,  325. 


INDEX 


345 


Bramantino,  86. 

Bramley,  F.,  316. 

Brangwyn,  F.,  315. 

Breton,  Jules  Adolphe,  189,  190. 

Brett,  John,  314. 

Breitner,  274. 

Bridgman,  Frederick  A.,  332. 

Bril,  Paul,  239. 

Bristol,  John  B.,  325. 

Broederlam,  Melchior,  155. 

Bronzino  (Angelo  Allori),  il,  143. 

Brouwer,  Adriaen,  246. 

Brown,  Ford  Madox,  313. 

Brueghel,  Jan  the  Elder,  245. 

Brueghel,  Jan  the  Younger,  245. 

Brueghel,  Peter,  232. 

Brueghel,  P.  the  Younger,  233. 

Brusasorci,  Dom.  Riccio,  140. 

Brush,  George  D.  F.,  331. 

Bruyn,  B.,  27S. 

Bugiardini,  Giuliano  di  Piero,  107. 

Bunce,  W.  Gedney,  335. 

Burgkmair,  Hans,  286. 

Burne-Jones,  Sir  Edward,  313-314. 

Butler,  Howard  Russell,  335. 

Buysse,  G.,  249. 

Cabanel,  Alexandre,  192. 

Cabat,  184. 

Callcott,  Sir  Augustus  Wall,  307. 

Callot,  Jacques,  158. 

Calvaert,  Denis,  238. 

Cameron,  D.  Y.,  316. 

Camphuysen,  G.,  269. 

Campin,  Robert,  225. 

Canaletto  (Antonio  Canale),  il,  149. 

Cano,  Alonzo,  215. 

Canon,  Hans,  33J. 

Cappelle,  Jan  van  de,  271. 

Caracci,  Agostino,  144-145. 

Caracci,  Annibale,  144-145. 


Caracci,  Ludovico,  144-145. 
Caravaggio,  Michelangelo  Amerighi 

da,  146-147. 
Carbonero,  218. 

Cariani  (Giovanni  Busi),  137.  .. 

Carlson,  E„  335- 

Carolus-Duran,     Charles     Auguste 

Emile,  195. 
Caroto,  Giovanni  Francesco,  91. 
Carpaccio,  Vittore,  98. 
Carriere,  E.,  195. 
Carstens,  Asmus  Jacob,  290-291. 
Casado,  218. 
Casilear,  324. 
Cassatt,  Mary,  201,  332. 
Castagno,  Andrea  del,  76. 
Castro,  Juan  Sanchez  de,  213. 
Catena,  Vincenzo  di  Biagio,  101. 
Caterino,  95. 
Cattermole,  George,  311. 
Cavallini,  Pietro,  60. 
Cavazzola,  Paolo  (Moranda),  140. 
Cazin,  Jean  Charles,  187. 
Cespedes,  Pablo  de,  213. 
Cezanne,  201. 

Champaigne,  Philip  de,  162. 
Champmartin,  Callande  de,  178. 
Chapman,  Carlton  T.,  335. 
Chardin,  Jean  Baptiste  Simeon,  166. 
Chase,  William  M.,  329-330. 
Chelminski,  339. 
Chintreuil,  Antoine,  187. 
Church,  Frederick  E.,  324. 
Cima  da  Conegliano,  Giov.  Battista, 

100. 
Cimabue,  Giovanni,  61. 
Civerchio,  86. 
Claude  Lorrain,  159. 
Claus,  E.,  249. 
Clays,  Paul  Jean,  249. 
Cleve,  Juste  van,  231. 


346 


INDEX 


Cleve  the  Younger,  238. 

Clouet,  Francois,  156. 

Clouet,  Jean,  156. 

Coello,  Claudio,  213. 

Coffin,  William  A.,  334. 

Cogniet,  Leon,  178. 

Cole,  Peter,  298. 

Cole,  Thomas,  323. 

Cole,  Vicat,  315. 

Coleman,  C.  C,  329. 

Collins,  A.  Q.,  331. 

Colman,  Samuel,  334. 

Coninxloo,  C.  van,  236. 

Conrad  de  Soest,  278. 

Constable,  John,  307-308. 

Conti,  Bern,  de',  119. 

Cooper,  C.  C,  335. 

Cooper,  S.,  297. 

Copley,  John  Singleton,  303. 

Coques,  Gonzales,  246. 

Cormon,  Fernand,  195. 

Corneille  de  Lyon,  156. 

Cornells  van  Haarlem,  256. 

Cornells  van  Oostsanen,  255. 

Cornelius,  Peter  von,  291. 

Corot,  Jean  Baptiste  Camille,  184- 

185. 
Correggio  (Antonio  Allegri),  il,  123- 

126. 
Cosimo,  Piero  di,  78. 
Cossa,  Francesco,  84. 
Cossiers,  244. 
Costa,  Lorenzo,  84. 
Cotes,  301. 

Cotman,  John  Sell,  307. 
Cottet,  199. 
Courbet,  G.,  190. 
Cousin,  Jean,  157. 
Couture,  Thomas,  181. 
Cox,  David,  311. 
Cox,  Kcnyon,  330. 


Coxcyen,  M.  van,  237. 
Coypel,  Antoine,  160. 
Cozens,  John  Robert,  310. 
Cranach    (the   Elder),  Lucas,   288- 

289. 
Cranach     (the     Younger),    Lucas, 

289. 
Crane,  R.  Bruce,  334. 
Crawhall,  Joseph,  316. 
Crayer,  Gasper  de,  244. 
Credi,  Lorenzo  di,  78. 
Cristus,  Peter,  225. 
Crivelli,  Carlo,  96. 
Crome,  John  (Old  Crome),  306. 
Crome,  J.  B.,  307. 
Cuyp,  Aelbert,  270. 
Czaktornay,  338. 

Daddi,  Bernardino,  62. 

Dagnan-Bouveret,  Pascal  A.  J.,  199. 

Dahl,  341. 

Dalman,  Luis,  207. 

Damophilus,  42. 

Damoye,  Pierre  Emmanuel,  187. 

Dannat,  William  T.,  t,32- 

Dantan,  Joseph  Edouard,  199. 

Daret,  Jacques,  225. 

Daubigny,  Charles  Francois,  186. 

David,  Gerard,  229. 

David,  Jacques  Louis,  168-172. 

Da  vies,  A.  B.,  335. 

Dearth,  Henry  J.,  334. 

De  Camp,  J.,  331. 

Decamps,  A.  G.,  178. 

Defendente  de  Ferrari,  119. 

Defregger,  292. 

1  >egas,  201. 

Delabcrge,  184. 

Delacroix,    Ferdinand     Victor    E., 

176-177. 
Delaroche,  Hippolyte  (Paul),  178. 


INDEX 


347 


Delaunay,  Jules  Elie,  195. 

Delff,  J.  W.,  257. 

De  Neuville,  Alphonse  Maria,  198. 

DeNittis.    See  "Nittis." 

Denner,  Balthasar,  289-290. 

Detaille,    Jean    Baptiste    Edouard, 

198. 
Deveria,  Eugene,  178. 
Dewey,  Charles  Melville,  334. 
Dewing,  Thomas  W.,  330. 
Dewint,  Peter,  311. 
Diana,  Benedetto,  101. 
Diaz  de  la  Pena,  Narciso  Virgilio, 

186. 
Diepenbeeck,  Abraham  van,  243. 
Dionysius,  42. 
Dobson,  W.,  298. 
Dolci,  Carlo,  146. 
Domenichino  (Domenico  Zampieri), 

146. 
Domenico  Veneziano,  76. 
Domingo,  J.,  219. 
Donato,  95. 
Dossi,  Dosso  (Giovanni  di  Lutero), 

121. 
Dou,  Gerard,  262. 
Dougherty,  P.,  335. 
Doughty,  Thomas,  323. 
Duccio  di  Buoninsegna,  64. 
Duez,  Ernest  Ange,  199. 
Du  Jardin,  Karel,  270. 
Dupre,  Jules,  185. 
Dupre,  Julien,  196. 
Durand,  Asher  Brown,  323. 
Durer,  Albrecht,  282-283. 
Duveneck,  F.,  331. 

Eakins,  T.,  331. 
Earle,  R.,  320. 
East,  Sir  Alfred,  315. 
Eaton,  W.,  331. 


Eckersberg,  339. 

Edelfelt,  339. 

Eeckhout,  Gerbrand  van  den,  260. 

Elliott,  Charles  Loring,  325. 

Elzheimer,  Adam,  289. 

Engelbrechtsen,  Cornelis,  254. 

Engelhart,  337. 

Epstein,  337. 

Etty,  William,  302. 

Eugen,  Prince,  340. 

Euphranor,  35. 

Eupompus,  35. 

Eusebio  di  San  Georgio,  84. 

Everdingen,  Allart  van,  268. 

Eyck,  Hubert  van,  223-224,  251-253. 

Eyck,  Jan  van,   223-225,   251-253. 

Fabius  Pictor,  42. 

Fabritius,  Bern,  261. 

Fabritius,  Carel,  261. 

Fantin-Latour,  Henri,  199. 

Fattori,  152. 

Favretto,  Giacomo,  151. 

Ferrara,  Gaudenzio,  119. 

Fielding,   Anthony   V.    D.    Copley, 

3". 

Filippino.     See  t  Lippi. 

Fiore,  Jacobello  del,  95. 
Fiorenzo  di  Lorenzo,  81. 
Fisher,  Mark,  316,  332. 
Flandrin,  Jean  Hippolyte,  180. 
Flinck,  Govaert,  260. 
Floris,  Franz,  237. 
Foppa,  Vincenzo,  86. 
Forbes,  Stanhope,  316. 
Fortuny,  Mariano,  218. 
Foster,  B.,  334. 
Fouquet,  Jean,  155. 
Fragiocomo,  152. 
Fragonard,  Jean  Honore,  165. 
Francais,  Francois  Louis,  187. 


348 


IXDF.X 


Francesco  fli  Giorgio,  66. 
Francia,  Francesco  (Raibolini),  85. 
Franciabigio   (Francesco  di  Cristo- 

fano  Bigi),  108. 
Francken,  A.,  238. 
Frederick,  L.,  249. 
Freminet,  Martin,  158. 
Friant,  Emile,  199. 
Friedrich,  O.,  337. 
Frolich,  340. 
Froment,  Nicolas,  155. 
Fromentin,  E.,  179. 
Fuller,  George,  326. 
Fulton,  R.,  321. 
Fungai,  Bern,  121. 
Furse,  C.  W.,  316. 
Fyt,  Jan,  245. 

Gaddi,  Agnolo,  62. 

Gaddi,  Taddeo,  62. 

Gainsborough,  T.,  300. 

Gallait,  Louis,  248. 

Gallegos,  Fernando,  208. 

Gallen,  339. 

Garofalo  (Benvenuto  Tisi),  il,  121- 

122. 
Garsten,  N.,  316. 
Gauguin,  201. 
Gay,  Edward,  334. 
Gay,  Walter,  332. 
Geertgen  tot  St.  Jans,  253. 
Gegerfelt,  340. 
Gelder,  A.  de,  261. 
Genga,  Girolamo,  121. 
Gentile  da  Fabriano,  66. 
G6rard,  Baron  Francois  Pascal,  172. 
Gericault,  Jean  Louis,  A.  T.,  176. 
Gerini,  Nicolo  di  Piero,  63. 
Gerome,  Jean  Leon,  192. 
Gerson,  339. 
Gervcx,  Henri,  199. 


Ghirlandajo,  Domcnico,  79. 
Ghirlandajo,  Ridolfo,  107. 
(iiambono,  Michcle,  95. 
Gianpietrino     (Giovanni     Pedrini), 

119. 
Gilford,  R.  Swain,  334. 
Gifford,  Sandford,  325. 
Giordano,  Luca,  148. 
Giorgione    (Giorgio    Barbarelli),    il, 

128-130. 
Giotto  di  Bondone,  61-65. 
Giottino  (Tommaso  di  Stcfano),  62. 
Giovanni  da  Milano,  62. 
Giovanni  da  Udine,  114. 
Girodet  de  Roussy,  Anne  Louis,  172. 
Girolamo  da  Treviso  the  Younger, 

137- 
Girtin,  Thomas,  310. 
Giulio  (Pippi)  Romano,  114. 
Giunto  of  Pisa,  60. 
Glackens,  W.,  334. 
Gleyre,  Marc  Charles  Gabriel,  180. 
Goes,  Hugo  van  der,  227. 
Goltzius,  256. 
Gorgasus,  42. 
Gorski,  339. 
Gossart,  Jan,  236. 
Gotch,  T.  C.,  316. 
Gower,  G.,  298. 

Goya  y  Lucientes,  Francisco,  217. 
Goyen,  Jan  van,  267. 
Gozzoli,  Benozzo,  76. 
Granacci,  Francesco,  107. 
Grandi,  Ercole  di  Giulio,  84. 
Gray,  325. 
Grcenhill,  298. 
Greincr,  293. 

Greuzc,  Jean  Baptiste,  166. 
Gros,  Baron  Antoine  Jean,  172-173. 
Griinewald,  Matthias,  284. 
Griitzner,  292. 


INDEX 


349 


Guardi,  Francesco,  149. 

Guariento,  87. 

Gude,  341. 

Guercino  (Giov.  Fran.  Barbiera),  il, 

146. 
Guerin,  Pierre  Narcisse,  172. 
Guido  of  Sienna,  60. 
Guido  Reni,  146. 
Guthrie,  Sir  James,  316. 

Habermann,  293. 

Hacker,  A.,  316. 

Hagborg,  340. 

Hals,  Dirck,  257. 

Hals,  Frans,  257,  258. 

Hamilton,  James,  316. 

Hamilton,  McLure,  332. 

Hammershoj,  340. 

Hamon,  Jean  Louis,  181. 

Harding,  Chester,  325. 

Harpignies,  Henri,  187. 

Harrison,  B.,  334. 

Harrison,  T.  Alexander,  332. 

Hassam,  Childe,  331,  335. 

Haverman,  274. 

Haydon,  303. 

Hayes,  E.,  315. 

Hayls,  J.,  298. 

Healy,  George  P.  A.,  325. 

Hebert,    Antoine    Auguste    Ernest, 

194. 
Helsted,  339. 
Heem,  Jan  van,  272. 
Heemskerck,  Marten  van,  255. 
Heist,  Bartholomeus  van  der,  261. 
Hemessen,  Jan  S.,  231. 
Heere,  Lucas  de,  238. 
Heerschop,  261. 
Henner,  Jean  Jacques,  194. 
Hennig,  342. 
Henri,  R.,  331. 


Henry,  George,  316. 

Henry,  N.,  315. 

Herkomer,  Hubert,  315. 

Hermann,  337. 

Herrera,  Francisco  de,  214. 

Herrera  the  Younger,  216. 

Heyden,  Jan  van  der,  271. 

Hicks,  Thomas,  326. 

Hill,  Thomas,  324. 

Hitchcock,  George,  332. 

Hjerlow,  342. 

Hobbema,  Meindert,  269. 

Hogarth,  William,  298. 

Holbein  (the  Elder),  Hans,  286-287. 

Holbein  (the  Younger),  Hans,  287- 

289,  298. 
Holl,  Frank,  315. 
Holsoe,  339. 

Homer,  Winslow,  328,  335. 
Hondecoeter,  Melchior  d',  272. 
Hooch,  P.  de,  264-265. 
Hoogstraaten,  S.  van,  261. 
Hook,  James  Clarke,  315. 
Hoppner,  John,  301. 
Hornell,  E.  A.,  316. 
Hubbard,  Richard  \V.,  324. 
Hudesek,  338. 
Hudson,  298. 
Huet,  Paul,  184. 
Huguet,  Jaime,  207. 
Hunt,  Holman,  31 1-3 12. 
Hunt,  William  Henry,  311. 
Hunt,  William  Morris,  326. 
Huntington,  Daniel,  325. 
Huysum,  Jan  van,  272. 
Hynais,  A.,  33S. 

Ingham,  325. 

Ingres,    Jean    Auguste    Dominique, 

172. 
Inman,  Henry,  325. 


35° 


INDEX 


[nness,  George,  332_33.v 
[nnocenza   da    Imola    (Francucci), 

114. 
[rminger,  339. 
[sabey,  Eugene,  180. 
[senbrant,  229. 
Israels,  Jozef,  272. 

JACQUE,  Charles,  188. 
Jaerriefelt,  339. 
Jamisone,  T.,  298. 
Jansa,  338. 

Jarvis,  John  Wesley,  323. 
Javor,  338. 
Jewett,  322. 
Johansen,  339. 
Johnson,  David,  325. 
Johnson,  Eastman,  328. 
Jongkind,  274. 
Jonson,  298. 
Jordaens,  Jacob,  244. 
Jorgenscn,  341. 
Jouvenet,  Jean,  160. 
Juan  de  Borgona,  208. 
Juannes,  Juan  de,  216. 
Justus  van  Ghent,  236. 

K  \u\  Willem,  272. 
Karlinsky,  337. 
Katona,  I".,  338. 
Kauffman,  Angelica,  290. 
Kaulbach,  Wilhelm  von,  291. 
Keller,  293. 

Kendall,  Sergeant,  331. 
Kensett,  John  !•'.,  323. 
Kernstock,  338. 

Kcvcr,  J.  S.  II.,  274. 
Key,  Adrian,  238. 

Key,  Willem,  238. 
Keyser,  Thomas  de,  258. 
Khnopff,  !•'.,  249. 


Klinger,  Max,  293. 

KJint,  G.,  337. 

Kneller,  Sir  Godfrey,  297. 

Kollman,  337. 

Kolstoe,  341. 

Konig,  337. 

Koninck,  Salomon,  261. 

Kost,  335. 

Kreuger,  340. 

Krog,  341. 

Kroyer,  Peter  S.,  338. 

Kuehl,  G.,  293. 

Kulmbach,  Hans  von,  284. 

Kunz,  279. 

La  Farge,  John,  328-329. 

Lancret,  Nicolas,  164. 

Landseer,  Sir  Edwin  Henry,  304. 

Lanier,  N.,  298. 

Largilliere,  Nicolas,  162. 

Larsson,  341. 

Larwin,  337. 

Lastman,  Pieter,  256. 

Lathrop,  W.  L.,  334. 

Latouche,  G.,  201. 

Laurens,  Jean  Paul,  195. 

La  very,  John,  316. 

Lawrence,  Sir  Thomas,  301-302. 

Lawson,  Cecil  Gordon,  315. 

Lawson,  E.,  334. 

Lawson,  John,  316. 

Leal,  Valdes,  216. 

Lebrun,  Charles,  160. 

Lebrun,  Marie  Elizabeth  Louise  Vi- 

gee-,  174. 
Leempoels,  J.,  249. 
Lcfebvre,  Jules  Joseph,  194. 
Leibl,  Wilhelm,  293. 
Leigh  ton,  Sir  Frederick,  314. 
Leloir,  Alexandre  Louis,  198. 
Lely,  Sir  Peter,  297. 


INDEX 


351 


Le  Moyne,  Fran.,  162. 

Le  Nain,  158. 

Lenbach,  Franz,  292. 

Leonardo  da  Vinci,  11 5-1 18. 

Lerolle,  Henri,  igo. 

Leslie,  Robert  Charles,  323. 

Le  Sueur,  Eustache,  161. 

Lethiere,  Guillaume  Guillon,  172. 

Leutze,  Emanuel,  325-326. 

Lewis,  John  Frederick,  314. 

Leyden,  Lucas  van,  254. 

Leys,   Baron  Jean  Auguste  Henri, 

248. 
Leyster,  Judith,  258. 
Lhermitte,  Leon  Augustin,  196. 
Liberale  da  Verona,  90. 
Libri,  Girolamo  dai,  91. 
Licinio,  Bernardino,  138. 
Lie,  Jonas,  335. 
Liebermann,  Max,  293. 
Lievens,  Jan,  261. 
Liljefors,  Bruno,  341. 
Lippi,  Fra  Filippo,  76. 
Lippi,  Filippino,  77. 
Locher,  339. 
Lockwood,  Wilton,  330. 
Lombard,  Lambert,  237. 
Longhi,  Pietro,  150. 
Loo,  Carle  van,  163. 
Lorenzetti,  Ambrogio,  65. 
Lorenzetti,  Pietro,  65. 
Lorenzo  Veneziano,  95. 
Lotto,  Lorenzo,  137. 
Low,  WillH.,  331. 
Luini,  Bernardino,  118. 
Luks,  G.  B.,  335. 

McBride,  A.,  316. 
McEntee,  Jervis,  325. 
McEwen,  Walter,  332. 
McLane,  Jean,  335. 


Macip,  Vincente,  216. 

Macrino,  d'Alba,  120. 

McTaggart,  316. 

Madrazo,  Raimundo  de,  219. 

Maes,  Nicolaas,  260. 

Maignan,  199. 

Mainardi,  Bastiano,  80. 

Makart,  Hans,  292,  337 

Makowski,  338. 

Maliavine,  ^7,8. 

Malouel,  Jean,  155. 

Mancini,  152. 

Manet,  Edouard,  199-200. 

Mansueti,  Giovanni,  98. 

Mantegna,  Andrea,  89. 

Maratta,  Carlo,  146. 

Marchetti,  152. 

Marconi,  Rocco,  138. 

Margaritone  of  Arezzo,  60. 

Marilhat,  P.,  179. 

Maris,  James,  273. 

Maris,  Matthew,  274. 

Maris,  Willem,  274. 

Marmion,  Simon,  156. 

Martin,  Henri,  199. 

Martin,  Homer,  334. 

Martini,  Simone,  65. 

Martorell,  207. 

Marziale,  101. 

Masaccio,  Tommaso,  75,  76. 

Masolino,  Tommaso  Fini,  75. 

Master  of  Death  of  Virgin,  231. 

Master  of  Hausbuchs,  285. 

Master  of  Heisterbach  Altar,  278. 

Master  of  Kinsfolk  of  Virgin,  278. 

Master  of  Liesborn,  278. 

Master  of  Life  of  Virgin,  278. 

Master  of  Moulins,  156. 

Master  of  Oultremont,  255. 

Master  of  St. Bartholomew  Altar, 2 78. 

Master  of  St.  Severin,  278. 


352 


INDEX 


Master  of  the  Virgo  inter  Virgmes, 

254- 
Matteo  di  Giovanni,  66. 

Maufra,  203. 
Mauve,  Anton,  274. 

Max   G.,   292,  337. 

May,  E.  II.,  329. 

Maynard,  George  W.,  335. 

Mazo,  Juan  Bautista  Martinez  del, 

212. 
Mazzolino,  Ludovico,  122. 
Meire,  Gerard  van  der,  229. 
Meissonier,  Jean  Louis  Ernest,  197- 

198. 
Meister  Bertram,  277. 
Meister  Francke,  277. 
Meister  Stephen  (Lochner),  278. 
Meister  Wilhelm,  278. 
Melchers,  Gari,  332. 
Melozzo  da  Forli,  82. 
Melville,  Arthur,  316. 
Melzi,  Franc.,  119. 
Memling,  Hans,  227-228. 
Memmi,  Lippo,  65. 
Mengs,  Raphael,  290. 
Menzel,  Adolf,  293. 
Mesdag,  Hendrik  Willem,  274. 
Metcalf,  Willard  L.,  331,  334. 
Metrodorus,  42. 
Metsu,  Gabriel,  264. 
Metsys,  Jan,  237. 
Metsys,  Quentin,  229. 
Michallon,  Achille  Etna,  174. 
Michel,  Georges,  184. 
Michelangelo  (Buonarroti),  108-110. 
Michetti,  Francesco  Paolo,  151. 
Mierevelt,  Michiel  Jansz,  257. 
Mien's,  Frans  van,  262. 
Mignard,  Pierre,  162. 
Millais,  Sir  John,  311-313. 
Millet,  Francis  I).,  331. 


Millet,  Jean  Francois,  189,  190. 

Miranda,  Juan  Carreiio  de,  212. 

Moll,  337. 

Molyn,  Pieter  de,  268. 

Mompers,  J.  de,  239. 

Monet,  Claude,  202-203. 

Montagna,  Bartolommeo,  92. 

Moore,  Albert,  314. 

Moore,  Henry,  315. 

Morales,  Luis  de,  209. 

Moran,  Thomas,  325. 

Moreau,  Gustav,  195. 

Moreelse,  P.,  257. 

Morelli,  Domenico,  151. 

Moretto  (Alessandro  Buonvicino),  il, 

139-140. 
Morland,  George,  303. 
Moro,  Antonio,  238. 
Morone,  Dom.,  91. 
Morone,  Franc,  91. 
Moroni,  Giovanni  Battista,  140. 
Morse,  S.  F.  B.,  322. 
Morton,  Thomas,  316. 
Moser,  280. 
Mostaert,  Jan,  255. 
Mount,  William  S.,  325. 
Mowbray,  H.  Siddons,  331. 
Muller,  L.  K.,  337. 
Muller,  N.,  341. 
Mulready,  William,  305. 
Multscher,  280. 
Munkacsy,  Mihaly,  294,  338. 
Munthe,  G.,  341. 
Munthe,  L.,  341. 
Murillo,   Bartolome   Esteban,   215- 

216. 
Murphy,  J.  Francis,  334. 
Myers,  Jerome,  335. 

Nardo  di  Cione,  63. 
Natoire,  163. 


INDEX 


353 


Nattier,  164. 

Navarette,  Juan  Fernandez,  209. 

Navez,  Francois,  248. 

Neagle,  J.,  325. 

Neer,  Aart  van  der,  268. 

Negroponte,  95. 

Nelli,  Ottaviano,  80. 

Neroccio  di  Landi,  66. 

Nesterov,  338. 

Netscher,  Kasper,  262. 

Neuchatel,  Nicolaus,  238. 

Neuhuys,  Albert,  273. 

Newton,  Gilbert  Stuart,  323. 

Niccolo      (Alunno)      da      Foligno, 

80. 
Nicias,  36. 
Nicomachus,  35. 
Nielsen,  340. 
Nittis,  Giuseppe  de,  151. 
Nono,  Luigi,  151. 
Nordstrom,  340. 
Normann,  341. 
Nowak,  337. 


Ochtman,  334. 

Oggiono,  Marco  d',  119. 

Olgyay,  F.,  338. 

Olsen,  341. 

Gpie,  John,  301. 

Orcagna  (Andrea  di  Cione),  63. 

Orchardson,  William  Quiller,  315. 

Orley,  Barent  van,  236. 

Orlick,  E.,  338. 

Orpen,  W.,  315. 

Ortolano,  122. 

Ostade,  Adriaen  van,  262. 

Ostade,  Isaac  van,  262. 

Ouless,  315. 

Ouwater,  Aalbert  van,  253. 

Overbeck,  Johann  Friedrich,  291. 


Pacchia,  Girolamo  della,  121. 

Pacchiarotta,  Giacomo,  121. 

Pacheco,  Francisco,  213. 

Pacher,  M.,  280. 

Pacuvius,  42. 

Padovanino  (Ales.  Varotari),  il,  148. 

Page,  William,  325. 

Palma  (il  Giovine),  Jacopo,  148. 

Palma  (il  Vecchio),  Jacopo,  135-136. 

Palmer,  W.,  334. 

Palmezzano,  Marco,  82. 

Palomino,  216. 

Pamphilus,  35. 

Panetti,  Domenico,  122. 

Pantoja  de  la  Cruz,  209. 

Paolino  (Fra)  da  Pistoja,  107. 

Pareja,  Juan  de,  213. 

Parmigianino  (Francesco  Mazzola), 

126. 
Parrhasius,  35. 
Parsons,  Alfred,  315. 
Pater,  Jean  Baptiste  Joseph,  164. 
Paterson,  James,  316. 
Patinir,  Joachim,  231. 
Paulsen,  339. 
Pausias,  35. 

Peale,  Charles  Wilson,  320. 
Peale,  Rembrandt,  322. 
Pearce,  Charles  Sprague,  ^$2. 
Pedersen,  339. 

Pelouse,  Leon  Germaine,  187. 
Pencz,  Georg,  284. 
Pennachi,  Pier  Maria,  101. 
Penni,  Giovanni  Francesco,  114. 
Peppercorn,  A.  D.,  317. 
Perino  del  Vaga,  114. 
Peroff,  338. 

Perugino,  Pietro  (Vanucci),  82,  83. 
Peruzzi,  Baldassare,  121. 
Pesellino,  Fran.,  77. 
Petersen,  Eilif,  341. 


354 


INDEX 


lYtknkofen,  337. 
Piazzetta,  G.  B.,  148. 
Piero  della  Francesca,  81. 

Piero  di  Cosimo,  78. 

Piloty,  Carl  Thcodor  von,  291-292. 

Pine,  R.,  320. 

Pinturicchio,  Bernardino,  83. 

Piombo,  Sebastiano  del,  136. 

Pisano,  Yittore  (Pisanello),  90. 

Pissaro,  Camille,  201. 

Pizzolo,  Niccolo,  S9. 

Piatt,  Charles  A.,  334. 

Plydenwurff,  Wilhelm,  281. 

Poggenbeek,  George,  274. 

Pointelin,  187. 

Pollajuolo,  Antonio  del,  76. 

Pollajuolo,  Piero,  76. 

Polvgnotus,  32. 

Pontormo,  Jacopo  (Carrucci),  108. 

Poorter,  Willem  de,  261. 

Pordenone,  Giovanni  Ant.,  137. 

Potter,  Paul,  269. 

Pourbus,  Frans  II,  238. 

Pourbus,  Peeter,  237. 

Poussin,  Gaspard  (I)ughet),  159. 

Poussin,  Nicolas,  158-159. 

Pradilla,  Francisco,  218. 

Pratt,  M.,  320. 

Previtali,  Andrea,  101. 

Prevost,  Jean,  229. 

Primaticcio,  Francesco,  114. 

Protogenes,  36. 

Prout,  Samuel,  311. 

Prudhon,  Pierre  Paul,  171-172. 

Puligo,  Dom,  108. 

Puvia  de  Chavannes,  Pierre,  194. 

QlTELLENHE.,  243. 

R  \i  BURN,  Sir  Henry,  301. 
RafTaelli,  Jean  Francois,  201. 


Ramenghi,  122. 

Ramsay,  301. 

Ranger,  H.,  334. 

Raphael  Sanzio,  m-114. 

Rauchinger,  337. 

Ravesteyn,  Jan  van,  258. 

Redfield,  E.  W.,  324. 

Regnault,  Henri,  195. 

Regnault,  Jean  Baptiste,  171. 

Rehn,  F.  K.  M.,  335. 

Reichlich,  M.,  280. 

Reid,  J.  R.,  315,  316. 

Reid,  Robert,  331. 

Reid,  Sir  George,  315. 

Rembrandt  van  Ryn,  258-262. 

Rene  of  Anjou,  154. 

Renoir,  201. 

Repin,  338. 

Reynolds,  Sir  Joshua,  298-300. 

Ribalta,  Francisco  de,  216. 

Ribera   (Lo   Spagnoletto),  Jose  di, 

217. 
Ribera,  Roman,  219. 
Ribot,  Augustin  Theodule,  198. 
Richards,  William  T.,  325. 
Richardson,  J.,  298. 
Rico,  Martin,  219. 
Rigaud,  Hyacinthe,  162. 
Rincon,  Antonio,  208. 

Ring,  339- 

Rippl-Ronai,  338. 

Robert-Fleury,  Joseph  Nicolas,  178 

Robert,  Hubert,  166. 

Roberti,  Ercole,  84. 

Robinson,  Theodore,  334. 

Roche,  Alex.,  316. 

Rochegrosse,  Georges,  195. 

Roelas,  Juan  de  las,  213. 

Rohde,  339. 

Roll,  Alfred  Philippe,  199. 

Romanino,  Girolamo  Bresciano,  139. 


INDEX 


355 


Rombouts,  Theodore,  244. 

Romney,  George,  300. 

Rondinelli,  Niccolo,  101. 

Rosa,  Salvator,  148. 

Rosselli,  Cosimo,  79. 

Rossetti,    Gabriel    Charles    Dante, 

311-312. 
Rosso  Fiorentino,  108. 
Rottenhammer,  Johann,  289. 
Rousseau,  Theodore,  185. 
Roybet,  Ferdinand,  198. 
Roymerswael,  231. 
Rubens,  Peter  Paul,  240-245. 
Ruisdael,  Jacob  van,  268. 
Ruisdael,  Salomon  van,  267. 
Ryckaert,  247. 
Ryder,  Albert,  329. 

Sabbatini  (Andrea  da  Salerno),  114. 

Salaino  (Andrea  Sala),  il,  119. 

Salmson,  340. 

Salviati,  Francesco  Rossi,  144. 

Sanchez- Coello,  Alonzo,  209. 

Sano  di  Pietro,  66. 

Santi,  Giovanni,  82. 

Sanzio.     See  "  Raphael." 

Sargent,  John  S.,  329. 

Sarto,  Andrea  (Angeli)  del,  107. 

Sassetta,  66. 

Sassoferrato  (Giov.  Battista  Salvi), 

il,  146. 
Savery,  245. 

Savoldo,  Giovanni  Girolamo,  139. 
Schadow,    Friedrich    Wilhelm    von, 

291. 
Schaffner,  Martin,  285. 
Schalcken,  Godfried,  262. 
Schattenstein,  337. 
Schauffelein,  Hans  Leonhardt,  283. 
SchefTer,  Ary,  178. 
Schiavone,  Andrea,  138. 


Schindler,  E.,  $^7. 

Schischkin,  338. 

Schnorr  von  Karolsfeld,  J.,  291. 

Schofield,  W.  E.,  335. 

Schongauer,  Martin,  284. 

Schiichlin,  Hans,  285. 

Schut,  Cornelis,  243. 

Schwaiger,  337. 

Scorel,  Jan  van,  255. 

Segantini,  Giovanni,  151. 

Seghers,  G.,  243. 

Sellajo,  Jac.  del,  78. 

Semitecolo,  Niccolo,  95. 

Serapion,  42. 

Sesto,  Cesare  da,  119. 

Shannon,  J.  J.,  332. 

Shinn,  E.,  335. 

Shirlaw,  Walter,  331. 

Shurtleff,  Roswell  M.,  334. 

Siberechts,  245. 

Sickert,  \V.,  316. 

Sigalon,  Xavier,  178. 

Signorelli,  Luca,  81. 

Simmons,  Edward  E.,  331. 

Simonetti,  Attilio,  151. 

Simony,  337. 

Sisley,  Alfred,  203. 

Skredsvig,  341. 

Sloan,  John,  335. 

Smedley,  William  T.,  331. 

Smibert,  John,  319. 

Snell,  Henry  B.,  335. 

Snyders,  Franz,  245. 

Sodoma  (Giov.  Ant.  Bazzi),  il,  121. 

Solario,  Andrea  (da  Milano),  119. 

Solomon,  S.  J.,  316. 

Sopolis,  42. 

Sorolla,  Joaquin,  2iq. 

Spagna,  Lo  (Giovanni  di  Pietro),  84. 

Spence,  Harry,  316. 

Spincllo  Aretino,  63. 


35^ 


INDEX 


Spranger,  Bartholomew,  238. 
Squaxcione,  Francesco,  88. 

Stark,  307. 

Stamina,  Gherardo,  66. 
Steen,  Jan,  264. 
Steer,  P.  \\ ".,  316. 
Stefano  da  Zevio,  90. 

Steverson,  342. 
Stevens,  Alfred,  249. 
Stewart,  Julius  L.,  332. 
Stone,  298. 

Story,  J-,  2>2>2- 
Stothard,  Thomas,  305. 

Stott,  Edward,  315. 

Strigel,  Bernard,  286. 

Strom,  342. 

Stuart,  Gilbert,  321. 

Stuck,  Franz,  293. 

Sully,  Thomas,  323. 

Susterman,  245. 

Swan,  J.  M.,  315. 

Swanenburch,    Jakob    Isaaks    van, 

258. 
Sweerts,  M.,  264. 
Symons,  G.,  335. 

Tarbell,  Edmund  C,  331. 

Teniers  (the  Younger),  David,  246. 

Terborch,  Gerard,  262-263. 

Thaulow,  Fritz,  342. 

Thayer,  Abbott  H.,  330. 

Thegerstrom,  R.,  341. 

Theodorich  of  Prague,  272. 

Theotocopuli,  Domenico,  209. 

Thoma,  Hans,  293. 

Thornhill,  Sir  J.,  298. 

Thulden,  T.  van,  244. 

Ticky,  337. 

Tideman,  341. 

Tiepolo,  ( riovanni  Battista,  148-149. 

Tiepolo,  Giovanni  Domenico,  149. 


Timanthcs,  35. 

Tintoretto  (Jacopo  Robusti),  il,  132- 

134- 
Titian  (Tiziano  Vecelii),  130-132. 

Tito,  Ettore,  151. 

Tocque,  164. 

Torbido,  Francisco  (il  Moro),  140. 

Toulmouchc,  Auguste,  198. 

Toussaint  du  Breuil,  157. 

Traini,  65. 

Tristan,  Luis,  211. 

Troy,  Francois  de,  160. 

Troyon,  Constant,  188. 

Triibner,  293. 

Trumbull,  John,  321. 

Tryon,  Dwight  W.,  334. 

Tuke,  Ff.  S.,  316. 

Tura,  Cosimo,  84. 

Turner,  C.  Y.,  331.. 

Turner,    Joseph    Mallord    William, 

309-311. 
Tuxen,  339. 
Twachtman,  John  H.,  334. 

Uccello,  Paolo,  76. 
Uden,  Lucas  van,  244. 
Uhde,  Fritz  von,  293. 

Vaentus,  Otto,  237. 

Valentin,  Le,  148. 

Yalkenbergh,  L.  van,  238. 

Van  Beers,  Jan,  249. 

Vanderlyn,  John,  321. 

Van  Dyck,  Sir  Anthony,  242-243. 

Van  Dyck,  Philip,  272. 

Van  Marcke,  Emil,  188. 

Vanni,  Andrea,  65. 

Vargas,  Luis  de,  213. 

Vasari,  Giorgio,  143-144. 

Yasnezov,  338. 

Vassiliev,  338. 


INDEX 


357 


Vaszary,  338. 

Vecchietta,  Lorenzo,  66. 

Vedder,  Elihu,  328. 

Veit,  Philipp,  291. 

Velasquez,  Diego  Rodriguez  de  Silva 

y,  211-212. 
Velde,  Adrien  van  de,  270. 
Velde  (the  Elder),  Willem  van  de, 

271. 
Velde  (the  Younger),  Willem  van  de, 

271. 
Venusti,  Marcello,  in. 
Verboeckhoven,  Eugene  Joseph,  249. 
Vereschagin,  338. 
Vergos,  207. 

Verhagen,  Pierre  Joseph,  248. 
Vermeer  of  Delft,  266. 
Vernet,  Claude  Joseph,  166. 
Vernet,  Emile  Jean  Horace,  174. 
Veronese,  Paolo  (Caliari),  134-135. 
Verrocchio,  Andrea  del,  78. 
Vibert,  Jehan  Georges,  198. 
Victors,  Jan,  261. 
Vien,  Joseph  Marie,  170. 
Vierge,  Daniel,  219. 
Villegas,  Jose,  219. 
Vincent,  Francois  Andre,  170. 
Vincent,  G.,  307. 
Vinci.     See  " Leonardo." 
Vinea,  Francesco,  151. 
Vinton,  F.  P.,  331. 
Viti,  Timoteo  di,  86. 
Vivarini,  Alvise,  96. 
Vivarini,    Antonio     (da    Murano), 

95- 

Vivarini,  Bartolommeo  (da  Mu- 
rano), 95. 

Vlieger,  Simon  de,  271. 

Vollon,  Antoine,  199. 

Volterra,  Daniele  (Ricciarelli)  da, 
no. 


Vos,  Cornells  de,  244. 
Vos,  Martin  de,  237. 
Vouet,  Simon,  158. 
Vrankx,  S.,  245. 

Wahlberg,  340. 

Waldo,  322. 

Walker,  Horatio,  334. 

Wallander,  340. 

Walton,  E.  A.,  316. 

Wrappers,  Baron  Gustavus,  248. 

Watelet,  Louis  Etienne,  174. 

Watson,  John,  319. 

Watteau,  Antoine,  164. 

Watts,  George  Frederick,  315. 

Waugh,  335. 

Wauters,  Emile,  249. 

WTeeks,  Edwin  L.,  332. 

Weenix,  Jan,  272. 

Weir,  J.  Alden,  331,  335. 

Weissenbruch,  274. 

Wentzel,  341. 

WTerenskiold,  341. 

W^erff,  Adriaen  van  der,  272. 

West,  Benjamin,  303,  319. 

Weyden,  Roger  van  der,  225-226. 

Whistler,   James  A.   McNeill,   316, 

33i. 
Whittredge,  Worthington,  325. 
Wiertz,  Antoine  Joseph,  248. 
Wildens,  Jan,  244. 
Wiles,  Irving  R.,  331. 
Wilkie,  Sir  David,  304. 
Willems,  Florent,  249. 
Wilson,  Richard,  305-306. 
Witsen,  274. 
Witz,  C,  280. 
W'olgemut,  Michael,  281. 
Woodbury,  335. 
Wouters,  F.,  243. 
Wouwerman,  Philips,  269. 


35« 

Wright,  Joseph,  320. 
Wright  of  Derby,  301. 
Wurmser,  Nicolaus,  279. 
Wyant,  Alexander  H.,  t,^^. 
Wyllie,  W.  L.,  315. 
Wynants,  Jan,  268. 

Zahrtmann,  339. 
Zamacois,  Eduardo,  219. 


INDEX 


Zcitblom,  Bartholomaus,  285. 
Zenale,  Bernardo,  86. 
Zeuxis,  34-35- 
Ziem,  180. 
Zoppo,  Marco,  89. 
Zorn,  Anders,  341. 
Zuccaro,  Federigo,  144. 
Zuloaga,  Ignacio,  219. 
Zurbaran,  Francisco  de,  215. 


AN  INITIAL  *lllZ~™™ 

W1LL  BE  ASSESSEO    FOR    "'UU .^   ^^ 
THIS    BOOK   ON    THE   DATE  FOURTH 

XLrN0RTO    -O0S0orTTHSE    SEVENTH    DAY 
OVERDUE. 


I  3fi    IS? 


LD  21-100,.,1'V  13  (8796s) 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CD37TbflSfll 


<" 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


